East/west commuters to continue to bear brunt of north/south road
By adamg - 8/20/08 - 9:18 am
State honcho vows: No tolls on I-93. Which means that tolls on the turnpike will continue to not go away to help pay for the Big Dig.
Commute-a-holic, who lives west of Boston, is not happy:
... I don't understand why North Shore and South Shore drivers get a free ride into Boston, where as everyone who lives West of Boston need to continue to pay to get into the city. It is so unfair. ...
Comments
I agree- it is unfair.
They're both technically interstate roads, so I can't imagine the justification for the policy. We're all in this together, no?
At this rate
the turnpike will be driven into bankruptcy. It has been loaded up with costs that were not its making, both past construction cost and future maintenance costs. No one will let it increase tolls or receive appropriate amounts of state aid.
This used to be the one part of the state highway network that was well maintained and safe. It will now deteriorate both physically and financially. Is the political goal to have a bankruptcy court judge rule the agency, thereby taking the heat off elected officials? That has been a standard form of behavior in this state for decades: Avoid the hard decisions and let the judiciary rule.
I dont want tolls on 93 as
I dont want tolls on 93 as much as the next person but it is unfair that most other major roads into the city have to pay. You cant get through the tunnel in East Boston, over the Bridge in Chelsea, through the pike in Metro West without paying ever creeping tolls, and it seems like the majority of that money goes to other parts of the system.
It sucks for people who live outside MetroWest too and I'll tell you why. I turned down a decent job in Framingham because I figured out the best route for me to get to Framingham involved going over the Tobin or through the tunnel in East Boston, both are three dollars I believe. My trip would then take me through several toll booths and then I would have to do it on the way back too. I would have moved out there after I got settled but I wouldnt have been able to take the time, pay for the gas, and pay for the tolls in the mean time. I figured out that I would have been able to pull it off if the tolls were not more than 10 dollars a day.
two reasons
1. 93 would slow to a crawl any time there was decent traffic. One word: Hookset
2. Cabbies, busses, trucks, commuters etc would all be more inclined to try and avoid 93, so already-taxed local roads in Boston would get even worse.
Why do you think they put in that fancy U-turn ramp on the Pike? To help ease local congestion...
I agree, but...
North Shorers have to deal with the ever-increasing Tobin tolls. Unless they want to skip the bridge and add twenty minutes to their trip and take 128 to 93.
It's the South Shorers who are getting the free ride. But tolls anywhere on, say, Route 3, or 93 around the gas tank, that would be mega traffic disaster.
Also, wasn't the Pike in an agreement to get rid of toll booths years ago? I don't remember where I read that, but wow. I can't believe I've gotta pay a toll to drive from 93 to Brighton but 93 from Winchester to Providence is toll-free.
I agree that congestion would be nuts on 93 were they to implement tolls, but I really think they should take out the tolls on the Pike from the Allston-Brighton-Cambridge exit all the way to 128. Yes, that's where they make the most money, but also where they create the most traffic backups.
Well I for one hope that
Well I for one hope that next summer $8/gallon gas will take care of all of this. Your toll differences will be a drop in the bucket at that point.
Astoundingly stoooopid
1. Tolls no longer mean tollbooths. Fast Lane and license reading technologies would allow the Commonwealth to charge without affecting traffic one iota.
2. It's stupendously inequitable.
3. Forget inequity, the civilized world is recognizing that fair roadway pricing is a necessity to and the subsidy for driving that warps our behaviors.
The worst news all summer. (And, I was pretty torn up about Manny getting the heave-ho.)
I agree, we just need to
I agree, we just need to have toll booth free toll locations (they should still be very well marked ahead of time) and those toll locations should be used to funnel traffic in the right directions. That way small local routes (like 99) can be tolled at 9am in the morning, but not tolled at night so they can kick out toll dodgers from that city street.
I also think reverse commuters should be given a break on the tolls as moving traffic causes much less pollution then non moving traffic and its a more efficient use of our roadways if people are using them both ways all the time.
Very not stoooopid
Demand-based toll rates. A very good idea.
To get wonky, you get highway congestion because the asset -- the right to travel on the road -- is free or under-priced. When an asset is under-priced, we can't distinguish between consumers. We can't tell which consumers have a greater need for the asset or which consumers are willing to pay more.
With market-based toll pricing, you could just keep increasing the toll at peak periods until traffic stopped snarling. The people left would, necessarily, be the ones with the greatest need for the road at that time. How do we know? Their willingness to pay the high toll is a pretty good proxy for the benefit that they get from the road.
And, this is the hidden cost of free roads. There are businesses that are hurt far more by the cost of congestion than they would be by a toll. Imagine you're a contractor or a shipper who has to use 93. Wouldn't it be worth $5, $10, $20 to save 20-30 minutes?
What?
Tolls no longer mean tollbooths. Fast Lane and license reading technologies would allow the Commonwealth to charge without affecting traffic one iota.
93 is an Interstate highway. So, what are all the people who aren't from MA or NY supposed to do? How about all of us who do not have Fast Lane transponders, because we don't commute on the Pike?
Plate-reading technology is far from perfect. I once got a ticket from NY State, claiming a license plate I hadn't used in almost a decade had gone through Fastlane illegally.
And where exactly would you place these Fast Lane readers, which can't read vehicles moving at highway speeds, thus requiring motorists to slow down? Oh yeah: a toll booth plaza.
Ontario does this without toll plazas
See http://www.407etr.com/ . It has no toll plazas, and anyone can drive on it. If you don't have a transponder, you'll get a bill in the mail.
Interestingly, 407ETR is
Interestingly, 407ETR is privately owned and operated.
Why not do both, raise the gas tax a bit AND toll the Interstates electronically? AND dedicated budgets, great idea.
I mean, isn't this already a crisis? But everybody's nay-saying. Fine, let MetroWest commuters pay to replace the Longfellow Bridge.
Intelligent design of the toll plazas...
Toll plazas can be designed to not affect the flow of traffic significantly if they are done correctly. The problem is Massachusetts hasn't designed anything competently in decades.
Assuming fast lane uses the same technology as EZ-Pass (which they probably do since you can use EZ-Pass in Fastlane receivers) they can read the transponders at highway speeds. See: Atlantic City Expressway.
Right on, stephencaldwell.
This is (part of) the rub:
I dont claim to be an expert
I dont claim to be an expert on the subject but I assume part of the reason why they make us slowdown if we have a fast lane pass is so we dont create a death river of cars going at 60 while those who have to pay with money stop. It would be impossible for them to merge back into the 60 mph crowd again and that would cause sheer chaos.
If nobody had to stop to pay the tolls it would be ok to lift the speed.
Fast moving cars, and tiny lanes.
That and the fact that they retrofitted the receivers on to the toll booths. Toll booths aren't particularly wide and passing through those at high speeds probably wouldn't work for most people.
High Speed EZ Pass and You
The NJ Turnpike has high speed EZ Pass lanes. You leave regular traffic with a separate two lane area for high speed EZ Pass. You pass under an array of readers and continue on. Those without EZ Pass must stay to the right where they arrive at normal toll booths just like now. They are given a distance after the booth to get back up to speed and the two lanes (high speed and toll booth) merge back to form a 3 lane road again.
The biggest problem at a normal toll booth for high speed EZ Pass lanes is that you can't see beyond the booth (for merging with non-high speed tolls and traffic backups) and toll workers must occasionally cross behind the booths. Thus an entirely different toll plaza is setup with a dedicated 2-lane area for high speed reading and a slowdown plaza on the right (albeit smaller because most people don't need it).
Finally, pretty much everyone is on the EZ Pass system in the Northeast (click map for bigger version):
That map is also a little out of date. RI announced a few months ago that it is switching its tolls to E-ZPass soon as well.
Getting a transponder
People who aren't from MA and NY (or any other E-ZPass compatible state) can get a transponder from any state with an E-ZPass system. My transponder is from MD even though my plate and address are MA and I could have gotten Fast Lane from MA instead. I just happened to be down there when I decided to stop on my way back to Boston to get it. You can also have them mailed to you so you don't even have to go pick it up.
If you don't have a transponder, you can get one. It's really easy.
You are wrong to assume there are no highway speed E-ZPass readers. There are plenty and more are being installed all the time. The lanes in the center of this road are marked for 55 mph:
That's in Illinois. I know of some in PA and NJ too.
Why you should get your transponder from New York
Unless they've changed things since I had one, they don't charge you $25 upfront (and they don't care where you live).
Monthly fees
Keep your Ez-Pass longer than two years and the $25 fee makes more sense.
MD was the same for me
MD charges $10 deposit if you pay by cash or check, but credit card applicants have no deposit. They don't care where you live (I'd be surprised to find a state that does, but who knows).
On the opposite end of the spectrum, don't use NJ. They charge $1 per month just to have the transponder. Their governor thought it'd be a good way to drum up some money to cover their budget losses. Pure evil when it just started showing up on my account because I don't get NJ news in MD to know it was starting. That's when I swapped it for MD.
Lots of unoccupied land in that picture
6 lanes of tolls on either side, plus a maintenance/office building. I'm not sure there's a single spot along I-93 between Braintree & Woburn where you could widen the highway by 150' or so to accomodate the new tollbooth without encroaching on private property and/or parkland. Which both drives up the cost of constructing the tollbooth and makes it more politically unattractive.
I agree, we dont have that
I agree, we dont have that sort of space.
Give me enough space and I can make it work perfectly. Most of our highways where we would like to toll people tend to be in large population centers. The New Jersey turnpike has quite a bit more through traffic , meaning more people just driving from NY to DC then we have.
Space
93 north of the city is hanging in mid-air at the Zakim. Widening that just means a few more pillars at Boston Sand and Gravel.
The Southeast Expressway has land where the HOV lanes begin/end. The tolls do not need as much room as what's shown because we have less through traffic than that section of road in the picture. It's only for demonstration purposes that these things exist.
Also, as to volume and delays associated with toll booths (of the non-high speed variety), both directions often slow down to a crawl at rush hour anyways. Whether there's a toll booth collecting cash or not at the same time is meaningless. At rush hour, things come to a crawl. Off rush hour, there aren't enough cars to cause a backup. The Mass Pike doesn't implode because there are tolls (in fact, it often backs up worse than at the tollbooths in places that don't have tolls like the Washington St exit at Brighton/Newton/Watertown.
Turnpike implosion point
The Weston tolls are often a nightmare not because of the tolls themselves but because of backups on 128, which then ripple into the toll plaza.
"just a few more pillars"
Building a floating tollbooth in the sky might be technically feasible, just very expensive. If the idea is to raise revenue for the state, spending $100M or so on land takings from Boston S&G and building a huge elevated platform doesn't seem to make much sense.
As for the SE X-way HOV lane - there's barely enough room now at the end for the garage to house the machine. Even if you were to blow away that garage, you'd have space for at most 2 toll lanes.
Id pay to ride in the SEX
Id pay to ride in the SEX HOV lane ;)
I agree, "a few more pillars"????? and the big dig was just a hole in the ground!
Id pay to ride in the
.
Brilliant. Wouldn't we all? :-)
But I'm with you, Shady. There's no way we're getting more lanes on the Zakim. If you want to prove me wrong, call me in thirty years, and I'll give you some sand and gravel.
Since the extended roadways would need to go in both directions, wouldn't there need to be a lane on the other side of the bridge? And wouldn't it be kind of nuts to try to build all of this over the loop ramp? There's got to be a better place to put this, if they do (which they won't). Maybe somewhere along the Fellsway up north, or...well, I'm not familiar with the SEX (at least that one), so I don't know a good place to put it. Wow. I'm digging myself into a hole here.
What about Seattle's New Trolley?
The South Lake Union Trolley sold many a t-shirt before it even started operations last December. Despite the name change, you can still get "I took a ride on ..." shirts all over town.
Not that the original juicy acronym is ever going to die.
If
If all you see is problems, you'll never locate the solution.
No tollbooths required
Every congestion-pricing scheme in place or under consideration uses a mix of license plate-reading cameras and transponders to identify who to charge. They didn't build tollbooths on the bridges into London. Tollbooths are so 20th Century.
It would not be cheap to build the infrastructure to capture usage on 93. Nor would it be cheap to administer the system. But, whatever it costs would be more than offset by the revenue generated.
Again, no tollbooths needed. None. Nein. Zip. Zero. Nada. Null.
The decision not to charge for passage through the Central Artery was not driven by a technical limitation. It's a failure of political will.
A Different Concept
Remove all tolls off of all the roads.
Raise the gas tax.
Change the state constitution or construct an entity to take in the revenue from gas taxes, use it for a comprehensive and systematic maintenance and building plan, and keep it out of the General Fund and the hands of the Great and General Court.
There: the more you drive and the more you drive in congested areas, the more fuel you use, the more you pay.
Wrong road to go down
Change the state constitution or construct an entity to take in the revenue from gas taxes, use it for a comprehensive and systematic maintenance and building plan, and keep it out of the General Fund and the hands of the Great and General Court.
That's an authority. I don't think we need to discuss how well transportation-related authorities in Massachusetts are doing right now (Massport possibly excepted).
No, Not an Authority
I'm not sure exactly what the legal structure is in other states, but it isn't an authority. UMass broke off from legislative punishment for existing without forming an authority. My dad worked for Oregon DOT, funded by gas taxes, and that wasn't an authority.
It does mean modernizing the constitution, to get rid of this year to year whim and all money in one pot situation. Worked in the 1700s, doesn't work now. There needs to be clear and durable linkage between funding and programs, funding and enforcement of regulations, etc. and the current situation doesn't work for other than short-term goals. One huge problem with the roadways and all other maintenance of infrastructure around here is a lack of dedicated funding for multi-year programs - just like it was with UMass system, Zoo New England, etc.
Looks like people will be
Looks like people will be heading to NH to buy their liquor, cigs, teevees, and gasoline under your administration.
People would be willing to leave the state to get their gas instead, especially in the outer parts of the state. Lots of people dont head to NH for the sales tax break because its not worth the gas to do it, but if you toss in cheaper gas on top of it then youve got a deal.
If I recall correctly,
many people already do go over the MA/NH state border in order to buy liquor (and other things) because the liquor stores aren't open on Sundays. However, driving for an hour to go over that same state border just for (cheaper) gasoline is, in itself, a waste of gas and money. Yet, if they're going over the state border because something that they need isn't available in here in the Bay State, well...that's another story.
That used to be true
but Massachusetts liquor stores have been open on Sundays for over four years now. For even longer, Mass. liquor stores in towns near the NH border were open on Sundays.
I stand corrected on this one, Ron.
n/m
You didn't know that? How is
You didn't know that? How is that possible?
Both
The gas tax is necessary to discourage people from getting in their cars (and to help fund roadway and transit projects generally). Tolls and other roadway pricing are necessary to discourage people from taking their cars on specific roads at specific times.
The two work together.
discourage people who have no choice, right
The gas tax is necessary to discourage people from getting in their cars (and to help fund roadway and transit projects generally)
I love the fantasy here that demand and price are directly linked. Right, because when the people of the commonwealth of Massachusetts outside of Metro-Boston get up in the morning, they think, "Hmm, well, I could walk 30 miles to work, but since gas is so cheap, I'll just drive instead." I know the plumbers think "shoot, I was gonna haul my half ton worth of tools on the back of a bike cart, but gas is so cheap..."
You do realize that, like rising food costs, fuel costs largely impact the poor and "middle income" population the most, right? That a large percentage of drivers do not have the choice of whether to drive or not? And all that rising fuel costs will do is (for the happy cases) cut into their budget for life's little luxuries, like traveling for vacation? And for the unhappy cases, cut into the budget for food, utilities, etc?
All the rich assholes driving $100K Mercedes don't give a shit if filling up costs them $100 instead of $75, but that's death to the tradesmen and people who have to commute an hour each day via car...
Thats why I dont believe in
Thats why I dont believe in the rising of the gas tax myself, because its a purely repressive tax, and some people just cant take the MBTA everywhere. Having peak hours on bottle necked roads is a better choice because most of that is centered in the city area where transit is more of an option. Some people will decide to take their car to the commuter rail station instead of driving all the way in. For those who are driving around the edges of the chaos they might not even notice the difference. Ive taken the buses out in the suburbs and tried to get to another suburb. Its not fun, and its not convenient, and the roads are pretty clear anyway so its not even a worthwhile goal to reduce these drivers.
Understanding subsidies
The discussion has to start from a shared understanding that driving is a heavily subsidized activity. Every person, rich or poor, who consumes less than the average amount of gasoline, subsidizes the driving of those who consume more.
Second, demand and price are oh-so-clearly linked. Driving has dropped year-to-year for the last few months. A direct response to the increase in gas.
Third, demand goes down because we are not close to the point where everyone is driving the bare-minimum amount. Nor is everyone driving the most fuel-efficient car they can afford. When we're all doing everything we can to reduce gasoline usage, then we can talk about an unfairness.
Fourth, who says tradesmen should be subsidized? Why shouldn't the true cost of driving be built into the service that the tradesman is providing?
Fifth, a gas tax, like most other consumption-based taxes, is regressive. But, it's regressiveness can be off-set if a large portion of the gas tax is earmarked for public transit. You want to talk about regressive? Why is public transit so less heavily subsidized than driving? Think it has anything to do with the fact that transit demographics skew towards the lower-income bracket?
If you implement a higher gas tax in a thoughtfully phased manner, people will have plenty of time to adjust to a less driving-dependent lifestyle.
Class warfare is the worst justification for the unconscionable status quo.
One flaw in this arguement
While the downturn in the economy and gas prices and inflation are a triple whammy that disproportionately affect people who spend proportionately more of their pay on basics, most people have some latitude to pick where they live and where they work.
Ten years ago, when gas was cheap and housing prices were merely insane, we chose to locate in a close-in suburb where we could afford a house on one income. We were told that we were crazy, that we were endangering our kids because we didn't live in outer suburbia, that worrying about the cost of commuting was silly because gas was cheap, etc. - all because we didn't want to commute to a suburb where we would have to drive all the time and drive the kids everywhere. Locating yourself within convenient cycling, driving, and transit distance of a huge percentage of the jobs in your region is never a bad bet.
Yes, there are people who are plain stuck due to the circumstances of their employment and their need to live in a particular place. People who have to drive for work and don't get reimbursed have my sympathy. Yet most of the people that I know who are howling made their own exurban beds and are now laying in them most uncomfortably. Nobody made them move to places where they would need to drive and need to drive even more if they had to change jobs. They could have afforded (at the time) to buy in Arlington, Watertown, Waltham, Medford, Braintree, Quincy, Lynn, Everett, Malden, Melrose ... They chose a certain lifestyle without an appreciation for the imminent downside or even what has historically happened during economic downturns in the area.
Consider as well that many suburbs around Boston have resisted affordable housing developments, snob zoned themselves into habitats fit only for cars, and fought public transit expansions. I have no pity for the people who allowed or supported that folly.
Damn right!
I got - and have continued to get - the same sort of flak for living in the heart of Dorchester (Fields Corner) with my family. But, as an on-the-road computer consultant, it just makes sense. I'm minutes from downtown, and all the major highways are a reverse commute.
Just ran into my first yuppie the other night in our recently opened Japanese shabu-shabu place who was scouting houses, now being an empty-nester. I have severely mixed feelings about this, as this is going to lead to raised housing prices (I'm still renting) and a general gentrification of the area.
Do I like the area being a somewhat dangerous poverty zone? No - but at the same time, I'm kinda annoyed by the sudden "discovery" of Dorchester by the exurbians who bugged out of the area years ago - many of whom grew up here.
I'm all for taxes on the highways that don't include reverse commuters. :) Pay to help rebuild our urban center, after you moved out and took your tax dollars with you? Hell yes.
OT -- but could you please say a little more....
... about the new shabu-shabu restaurant (in a new thread, if you think this shouldn't be derailed).
Thanks
;~}