Tolls are a bad idea not only for the traffic they will cause on 93, but because New Englanders will spend more on gas to not have to pay a toll if they can. I fear for all the traffic diverting over to routes 99, 1, 1a, 128..etc just to avoid that toll.
I love this argument that tolls will create traffic. Nonsense. Its call "fast lane." The days of people in toll booths are numbered and I say good riddance. Many cities - Chicago and Toronto for example - have tolls on major highways but, this being the 21st century, require you to have a transponder so you magically never have to stop. Those without a transponder are properly relegated to one lane where they have to wait a long, long time for refusing to spend $5 to enter the 21st century. I say put tolls on all of the roads and spend the highways dollars somewhere else or give it back to taxpayers.
You think those people without transponders will wait patiently in their own lane without causing traffic (and the associated air pollution) for everyone else? Not a chance.
Even with a "21st century" toll, it still requires additional infrastructure, enforcement, and bureaucracy to collect the fares. Not to mention the fact that it's inequitable - everyone who commutes to offices on 128 instead of downtown get off free.
Why not just raise the gas tax 5-10 cents per gallon? It's no tougher politically than adding new tolls, and could be implemented much quicker and easier.
I'm not sure how the "people waiting patiently" issue causes traffic. You don't need toll booths anymore. You just put a big bar over the entire highway and people get tolled as they drive. Initially, such systems do, as you say, require increased inforcement to catch people who think they can just drive through without a transponder, but this can actually be done with the same technology that catches people blowing red-lights and sends them a ticket by getting pictures of their plates (the "fast lane" also currently uses a version of this). Toronto actually has a toll system that doesn't even require transponders and automatically tolls everyone by getting a picture of their plates and either charging a pre-assigned account or sending them a bill if they don't have one. When talking about tolls people should stop thinking about toll booths. They aren't needed. Also, not sure how everyone who commutes downtown "gets off free" - they either pay to take the T or they pay for parking.
Oh, that's right - because then the money would just go into the great and general pile, and maybe a tidbit or two would come out for an occasional repaving.
And what happens when mom and pop come through the city on their way south to visit the grandkids ... and don't have a transponder?
That's my point - people without transponders won't wait patiently. They'll be in the left lane until 500 feet before the toll and then try to dive into the non-transponder lane, slowing traffic on all lanes. Drive on I-93 north near the 128 ramps in the morning if you want to see this phenomenon in action.
I agree that there are systems out there that are better than the traditional tollbooths, but any system will have some traffic impact, and have some capital & O&M costs associated with it.
And I didn't say that everyone who commutes downtown gets off free - the people who work outside of downtown do. Someone who commutes 6 miles from Winchester to downtown would pay a toll under this plan. Someone who drives 25 miles from Tyngsboro to an office in Woburn wouldn't. Using a gas tax hike instead of new tolls would address this as well.
All I'm saying is that many other places use this technology and their tolls don't cause traffic jams. I agree that our current fast lane system is a bad example of this, as you have just as many if not more non-fast lanes as fast-lanes, and you actually have to go through a booth to use it, so everyone is required to reduce speed and find their space. Done correctly, however, you have only one or two lanes on the far right side in which people can use money and everyone else just drives through at 65mph. As for the equity arguement, I'm in agreement with you that people who work in Boston shouldn't be shouldered with the whole burden. The idea of putting tolls just on the bridges to Boston is not only unfair to people who work in the City, but I would imagine the City wouldn't be too happy with a "visit Boston tax." I would suggest spreading the tolls out on 93 and everywhere else for that matter. As for the gas tax, right on. Lets do that too as long as the money collected gets dedicated either to public transit or at least to transportation of some sort.
If you pound the asphalt on a highway everyday, and I walk to work or take the T, your share of road maintenance should be higher than mine. What's so hard about that?
How would you feel if everybody west of Worcester stopped paying taxes that subsidize your share of the MBTA and you see it's month rates jump $150?
We're all in this together, and we have to give and take a little. the right response is holding our legislators accountable, and making sure they spend the money wisely, and without waste.
Easy to be glib when you are the heavily subsidized and inefficient one getting "all for one and one for all". You should be more careful about your "don't make me make you pay for your public transit!" lines. Heh Heh. Oh yes, that old "we're all in this together" somehow doesn't include the obvious "but I won't mention that the subsidies of my convenience are enormously wasteful of public funds and reflect bad planning decisions for everybody".
I don't think you want to make your "offer" ... $150 would be pretty damn cheap compared to your monthly layout if you had to pay $1000 a month to use the roads. Look it up - roads are extremely costly per user.
The Outraged Liberal writes it's about time - but wonders when Gov. Patrick will provide an example and start riding commuter rail (say, isn't there a trolley stop in Milton?).
Wouldn't congestion charging make more sense? I realize that this is a very sensitive issue for a lot of people, especially noting that car commuters from the suburbs and satellite cities pay a vital role in the regional economy. I say this because within the next decade, commodity prices and inflation may force people to drive less, and congestion charging can be an effective policy which would help ease people off of their cars.
Just a few short-term benefits of congestion pricing:
- Less traffic
- Cleaner air
- More vibrant street life (as more people will walk)
- More people relying on public transit, which will hopefully translate into more action on Beacon Hill to support it.
- Boston's overall health may improve - there are some who argue that the strain on the healthcare system would decrease if more people didn't consistently rely on their car.
Some long-term benefits
- People who commute into the city on a daily basis will begin to move into the city, or move to transportation hubs (TOD). Density is one of the main components of a sustainable community.
- The public transportation and pedestrian infrastructure will improve (hopefully along with some political and administrative changes)
- Potential to convert underdeveloped zones (e.g. parking garages) into mixed use developments.
- Less overall dependence on oil (commodity prices come down)
Lifestyle changes are very hard to make, but we may not have a choice, so it may make sense to create some policy which gives people an incentive to live a more sustainable and less oil-dependent life. Sure, we could count on market forces to solve the problem for us, but people willing to wait may end up getting hit with high transportation costs until a universal solution is agreed upon.
Installing tolls on I93 would probably be a bad idea, as some of the negative externalities associated with tolls (e.g. individuals opting to drive on already congested secondary roads, which will increase congestion without reducing demand on the roads) can be more detrimental. As far as the Mass Pike goes, there are many arterial routes traveling nearly parallel with the pike which have a high capacity (rt. 9, Storrow Drive, Comm Ave, Beacon). For drivers who rely on I93, a congested parkway system or secondary residential streets are the only real alternatives. Congestion pricing within the city is likely the only effective way to reduce strain on the roads.
and try googling "Frank Kelly Congestion Charging" to get more information.
Lets just say that some of the benefits exist, and some of your claims are proving to be more theory than reality, at least as far as the Central London CCS is shaping up.
Thanks for the link. Initiating a policy like this in Boston would definitely be a huge experiment. Seeing that London is about 12 times the size of Boston and in a different country, I'm not sure how much of a reliable case study it would be.
The study excerpt made a good point though, and concluded that if it were done on a larger scale, congestion pricing may be more effective (based on a health standpoint, at least). With the rate gas has been increasing lately, people may get priced out of their cars anyway, amount to a sort of intrinsic form of congestion charging.
Congestion pricing is an interesting idea but I wonder whether it would even pay off in Boston. Although we certainly have some traffic downtown in the mornings and evenings, its nothing like London or New York where traffic is basically at a standstill in some areas for significant periods of time. Nor do we have the sheer numbers they do. Wouldn't you have to make the zone like all of Boston or something?
A higher percentage of the brit car fleet is light-duty diesel than is seen in most US cities.
I think Boston could do a lot more short of congestion pricing - like crackdown on idling trucks and illegally parked delivery vehicles, reducing delivery hours in certain areas to cut idling and double parking, convincing offices to have more flexible hours so rush hour spreads out a bit, etc.
Fair is fair. The entire Big Dig project was primarily to improve the N-S thruways in the city and yet those drivers subsidize next to nothing of that cost compared to E-W drivers on the Pike. That alone argues for tolling the 93 drivers.
Now, to play a bit of devil's advocate: More tolls (or higher gas tax, makes no difference to this argument) will mean more people deciding, or financially forced, to use public transit to get to work downtown. That would usually be a great result from upping the cost to drive, but given the craptastic state of the MBTA as it is already (permanently delayed, understaffed, led by incompetence, choking in debt, too little capacity at peak usage...), increasing ridership is going to exacerbate nearly every complaint people have with the system as it is.
Comments
New Englanders are 'cheap'
Tolls are a bad idea not only for the traffic they will cause on 93, but because New Englanders will spend more on gas to not have to pay a toll if they can. I fear for all the traffic diverting over to routes 99, 1, 1a, 128..etc just to avoid that toll.
21st Century Tolls
I love this argument that tolls will create traffic. Nonsense. Its call "fast lane." The days of people in toll booths are numbered and I say good riddance. Many cities - Chicago and Toronto for example - have tolls on major highways but, this being the 21st century, require you to have a transponder so you magically never have to stop. Those without a transponder are properly relegated to one lane where they have to wait a long, long time for refusing to spend $5 to enter the 21st century. I say put tolls on all of the roads and spend the highways dollars somewhere else or give it back to taxpayers.
Sounds like traffic to me
You think those people without transponders will wait patiently in their own lane without causing traffic (and the associated air pollution) for everyone else? Not a chance.
Even with a "21st century" toll, it still requires additional infrastructure, enforcement, and bureaucracy to collect the fares. Not to mention the fact that it's inequitable - everyone who commutes to offices on 128 instead of downtown get off free.
Why not just raise the gas tax 5-10 cents per gallon? It's no tougher politically than adding new tolls, and could be implemented much quicker and easier.
Huh?
I'm not sure how the "people waiting patiently" issue causes traffic. You don't need toll booths anymore. You just put a big bar over the entire highway and people get tolled as they drive. Initially, such systems do, as you say, require increased inforcement to catch people who think they can just drive through without a transponder, but this can actually be done with the same technology that catches people blowing red-lights and sends them a ticket by getting pictures of their plates (the "fast lane" also currently uses a version of this). Toronto actually has a toll system that doesn't even require transponders and automatically tolls everyone by getting a picture of their plates and either charging a pre-assigned account or sending them a bill if they don't have one. When talking about tolls people should stop thinking about toll booths. They aren't needed. Also, not sure how everyone who commutes downtown "gets off free" - they either pay to take the T or they pay for parking.
Why not raise the fuel tax?
Oh, that's right - because then the money would just go into the great and general pile, and maybe a tidbit or two would come out for an occasional repaving.
And what happens when mom and pop come through the city on their way south to visit the grandkids ... and don't have a transponder?
Double huh
That's my point - people without transponders won't wait patiently. They'll be in the left lane until 500 feet before the toll and then try to dive into the non-transponder lane, slowing traffic on all lanes. Drive on I-93 north near the 128 ramps in the morning if you want to see this phenomenon in action.
I agree that there are systems out there that are better than the traditional tollbooths, but any system will have some traffic impact, and have some capital & O&M costs associated with it.
And I didn't say that everyone who commutes downtown gets off free - the people who work outside of downtown do. Someone who commutes 6 miles from Winchester to downtown would pay a toll under this plan. Someone who drives 25 miles from Tyngsboro to an office in Woburn wouldn't. Using a gas tax hike instead of new tolls would address this as well.
It works elsewhere
All I'm saying is that many other places use this technology and their tolls don't cause traffic jams. I agree that our current fast lane system is a bad example of this, as you have just as many if not more non-fast lanes as fast-lanes, and you actually have to go through a booth to use it, so everyone is required to reduce speed and find their space. Done correctly, however, you have only one or two lanes on the far right side in which people can use money and everyone else just drives through at 65mph. As for the equity arguement, I'm in agreement with you that people who work in Boston shouldn't be shouldered with the whole burden. The idea of putting tolls just on the bridges to Boston is not only unfair to people who work in the City, but I would imagine the City wouldn't be too happy with a "visit Boston tax." I would suggest spreading the tolls out on 93 and everywhere else for that matter. As for the gas tax, right on. Lets do that too as long as the money collected gets dedicated either to public transit or at least to transportation of some sort.
I don't know about you, but
I don't know about you, but a sectioned off, 10 mile, cash only lane, sounds AOK to me!
:D
From the Sunday Globe:
You don't need to "ask". You just need to open up a newspaper.
What's so hard about...
If you pound the asphalt on a highway everyday, and I walk to work or take the T, your share of road maintenance should be higher than mine. What's so hard about that?
Put tolls on 93. And 128, too.
because we live in a
because we live in a commonweath. You know,
How would you feel if everybody west of Worcester stopped paying taxes that subsidize your share of the MBTA and you see it's month rates jump $150?
We're all in this together, and we have to give and take a little. the right response is holding our legislators accountable, and making sure they spend the money wisely, and without waste.
Bullmuffins!
Easy to be glib when you are the heavily subsidized and inefficient one getting "all for one and one for all". You should be more careful about your "don't make me make you pay for your public transit!" lines. Heh Heh. Oh yes, that old "we're all in this together" somehow doesn't include the obvious "but I won't mention that the subsidies of my convenience are enormously wasteful of public funds and reflect bad planning decisions for everybody".
I don't think you want to make your "offer" ... $150 would be pretty damn cheap compared to your monthly layout if you had to pay $1000 a month to use the roads. Look it up - roads are extremely costly per user.
The case for tolls
The Outraged Liberal writes it's about time - but wonders when Gov. Patrick will provide an example and start riding commuter rail (say, isn't there a trolley stop in Milton?).
Congestion Pricing
Wouldn't congestion charging make more sense? I realize that this is a very sensitive issue for a lot of people, especially noting that car commuters from the suburbs and satellite cities pay a vital role in the regional economy. I say this because within the next decade, commodity prices and inflation may force people to drive less, and congestion charging can be an effective policy which would help ease people off of their cars.
Just a few short-term benefits of congestion pricing:
- Less traffic
- Cleaner air
- More vibrant street life (as more people will walk)
- More people relying on public transit, which will hopefully translate into more action on Beacon Hill to support it.
- Boston's overall health may improve - there are some who argue that the strain on the healthcare system would decrease if more people didn't consistently rely on their car.
Some long-term benefits
- People who commute into the city on a daily basis will begin to move into the city, or move to transportation hubs (TOD). Density is one of the main components of a sustainable community.
- The public transportation and pedestrian infrastructure will improve (hopefully along with some political and administrative changes)
- Potential to convert underdeveloped zones (e.g. parking garages) into mixed use developments.
- Less overall dependence on oil (commodity prices come down)
Lifestyle changes are very hard to make, but we may not have a choice, so it may make sense to create some policy which gives people an incentive to live a more sustainable and less oil-dependent life. Sure, we could count on market forces to solve the problem for us, but people willing to wait may end up getting hit with high transportation costs until a universal solution is agreed upon.
Installing tolls on I93 would probably be a bad idea, as some of the negative externalities associated with tolls (e.g. individuals opting to drive on already congested secondary roads, which will increase congestion without reducing demand on the roads) can be more detrimental. As far as the Mass Pike goes, there are many arterial routes traveling nearly parallel with the pike which have a high capacity (rt. 9, Storrow Drive, Comm Ave, Beacon). For drivers who rely on I93, a congested parkway system or secondary residential streets are the only real alternatives. Congestion pricing within the city is likely the only effective way to reduce strain on the roads.
I know too much
But it is all embargoed.
Just start here: Kings College Study of the CCS
and try googling "Frank Kelly Congestion Charging" to get more information.
Lets just say that some of the benefits exist, and some of your claims are proving to be more theory than reality, at least as far as the Central London CCS is shaping up.
High hopes for the Low Emission Zone though ...
Thanks for the link.
Thanks for the link. Initiating a policy like this in Boston would definitely be a huge experiment. Seeing that London is about 12 times the size of Boston and in a different country, I'm not sure how much of a reliable case study it would be.
The study excerpt made a good point though, and concluded that if it were done on a larger scale, congestion pricing may be more effective (based on a health standpoint, at least). With the rate gas has been increasing lately, people may get priced out of their cars anyway, amount to a sort of intrinsic form of congestion charging.
Congestion Pricing
Congestion pricing is an interesting idea but I wonder whether it would even pay off in Boston. Although we certainly have some traffic downtown in the mornings and evenings, its nothing like London or New York where traffic is basically at a standstill in some areas for significant periods of time. Nor do we have the sheer numbers they do. Wouldn't you have to make the zone like all of Boston or something?
Gasoline versus Diesel
A higher percentage of the brit car fleet is light-duty diesel than is seen in most US cities.
I think Boston could do a lot more short of congestion pricing - like crackdown on idling trucks and illegally parked delivery vehicles, reducing delivery hours in certain areas to cut idling and double parking, convincing offices to have more flexible hours so rush hour spreads out a bit, etc.
N-S Tolls
Fair is fair. The entire Big Dig project was primarily to improve the N-S thruways in the city and yet those drivers subsidize next to nothing of that cost compared to E-W drivers on the Pike. That alone argues for tolling the 93 drivers.
Now, to play a bit of devil's advocate: More tolls (or higher gas tax, makes no difference to this argument) will mean more people deciding, or financially forced, to use public transit to get to work downtown. That would usually be a great result from upping the cost to drive, but given the craptastic state of the MBTA as it is already (permanently delayed, understaffed, led by incompetence, choking in debt, too little capacity at peak usage...), increasing ridership is going to exacerbate nearly every complaint people have with the system as it is.