Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Southwestie?
Maybe they should try Southwestie (aka closer to the Red Line stations). There's enough grit there that they use it to cut with their coke to make the local crack variant.
I hope they wont have to
I hope they wont have to travel at all between South Boston and East Boston... Its gonna be 7 bucks per trip soon.
Um, what?
It's still $1.70, with no imminent plans to change it.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
routing?
Well, here you are in two threads criticizing strangers who possibly don't use the T as much as you believe they should.
Pray, what routing do you recommend from South Boston to East Boston, on public transit? How much time does that take? How well does that work with kids in tow, or kids to drop off at some other point along the way? Is it serviceable for a lunchtime doctor's appointment? Trip to the vet?
Southie and Eastie aren't exactly rich-people enclaves.
Maybe you want them to drive Zipcars. Zipcar has THREE (3) cars in Southie, and TWO (2) in Eastie. Roxbury, where your blog says you are, has by comparison a pretty decent sprinkling of cars, at least in areas where they maybe won't be destroyed.
When I'm no longer being run down by Mercedes SUV drivers when i bike down Mass Ave, I'll start demanding that poor people get on the T too. until then, I have to assume that people are smart enough to economize whenever they can. I assume that a low-to-middle income wage earner is probably astute enough to jump right over to a $1.70 ride on the T whenever it makes sense to do so, and that if they're driving a car, they probably have some decent reasons for doing so, whether it's due to time issues, kids, necessary errands, or safety.
I'm not a big guy but I'm reasonably sturdy and quite fast, and I have never felt all that safe jumping out of the T in Southie or Eastie even on occasion, much less every day. Ever seen the crowd of 100+ guys doing nothing at the Maverick T station, "waiting for a bus" (but then buses come and go, and the guys are still there)?
Depends what part of both neighborhoods
Take the red line or the bus downtown, then bus or blue line to Eastie, obviously. You can go to MBTA.com as easily as anyone, I'm guessing.
I've spent a lot of time traveling in both neighborhoods and between, both by car and by T. My current job and previous job both involve working with families in various Boston neighborhoods. I have mostly South Boston families right now, and take the T with them all the time.
I don't feel at all unsafe that it's culturally appropriate for many segments of mostly working-class people to hang out at T stations. I've hung out around Maverick Station myself. If I get there earlier than I need to be somewhere, I might stand around and people-watch or daydream. Or if I see someone I know, so I might stop to chat.
Are people doing nothing in particular always scary, or is it only if it's a neighborhood where "those sorts of people" spend time?
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Of course it depends
And that was my point, silly.
You're really full of yourself and it's about to get the btter of me, so i'm going to stop reading your self-important replies.
Go ahead and try to paint me as a racist in between the written lines. That's not only a poor strategy for argumentation but it's pretty god damned insulting as well.
And if you want to let your false naivete speak for you, I can't stop ya, princess.
You're still one cold hearted chick who hasn't thought very much about the real lives of real people, and in defense of your accusations against them, the best you can come up with is to try to steer the discussion away from your ridiculous statements, and toward me.
It's ridiculous to assert that poor people who drive cars do so because they're not as smart as you, or don't care enough about the environment as you, rather than because they have pretty good reasons to do so. It's damned expensive to own a car in MA. I doubt there are many in ordinary-to-lower income ranges (that is, residents of South and East Boston) who keep them only to decorate their indulgent lifestyles.
Try again. I'm guessing that you must be an MIT grad from the way you argue and write so defensively. How did I do on that count?
Wow, is it wild assumption time?
You know so very little about where Eeka works, where she lives, and how she gets around and yet you have the nerve to infer insult because she isn't afraid of places that you are afraid of.
Let's just say that the vast majority of SOCIAL workers who spend their time driving around various neighborhoods have a very much damn good idea of how people live, especially since they often share the income bracket, neighborhood, and job insecurity with the people they provide services to.
Princess indeed. Can you possibly be more condescending? Of course not, not when your self worth seemingly depends on putting people down.
but eeka is not a social worker
at least she's said that in the past here.
Social worker or not ...
I get the impression that she actually visits people's homes on a regular basis. That generally gives you some clue about how people live.
Driving?
her blog says she's a social worker who lives with cats.
No kids.
her "moderate" income is then probably about the same as that of some poor people with kids who don't really have all hte options she has... and who have way more places to be in the course of a day than she does...
... not counting work. When she's traveling for work, that's very different that it is for someone who has to go away from work to do life-errands.
Bottom line is:
- she's accused people in southie and eastie, who might bear the brunt of higher tolls, of being some sort of slacker / tree killer / gas guzzlers because they drive more than she finds acceptable. These are baseless allegations.
I countered that people aren't all dumber than her, and that there are plenty of reasons that people do drive, because they aren't lucky enough to live on the one magic bus route that goes to the airport in the middle of the night, or have kids and lots of places to go, or live at or go to places not well served by public transit. I also suggested that public transit sometimes takes more time than people have to spend traveling. Im summary, I said there are many unfortunate reasons that someone living in Southie or Eastie may need to drive, even if they would rather not, and even if they can barely afford to.
The unstated bit there is that if they're just getting by now, then the extra $20 or $30 per week does make a difference, and that we should assume that people who can avoid the expense would do so, but that it's just wack to say that they're just whining about the tolls. $100 lots per month is a lot of money for some families, but they seem to be stuck.
She countered by ever so coyly suggesting that I am racist.
I can't have a discussion with someone who calls me a racist in public.
On that count alone, she can go to hell. There's nothing further to discuss with her, given that.
No, really, what?
1. I am not a social worker. Nor does my blog say that I am. Since, you know, I'm not. You can really easily google me and find out what I do, if you care.
2. I didn't say anything about you being a racist. I don't even know you. I didn't even say there was any racism in anything you said. Do you feel that you're a racist? You seem to have used the word several times and then been unable to continue the conversation due to your racism.
3. My blog does not say whether I have kids.
4. I didn't say anything about people being dumb, especially not the families I work with. I'll go to some pretty amazing lengths to defend my clients, so no need to throw your baseless assumptions toward them. Save them all for me, please. I also didn't say that they're gas-guzzlers or harming the environment. You've decided all of these things. I was pointing out quite the opposite, which is that people need to have quite a lot of expendable income to even have cars. Most of my clients don't own cars, nor do most of my friends for that matter.
5. The travel I do for work involves going with parents to appointments, errands, taking their kids to and from school, etc. I think I probably do have at least a basic sense of what it's like to use the T to get places. I used it exclusively until last year, actually. I do have access to a car now.
6. Do you want to tell me anything about yourself and the experiences on which you're basing all this knowledge about me, everyone in Boston, average people's lives, etc? I've shared a lot about what I do all day. I also use my real name on my blog, so I'm really easy to googlestalk. So, since my experiences are all clearly wrong, please, tell me a little bit about yourself so I can see how yours differ.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
3. Yes, it does.
If that's what your family consists of, then you do not have kids.
We now return to your regularly scheduled argument.
Not, of course, that anybody
Not, of course, that anybody ever chooses to leave potentially sensitive information out of publicly searchable blogs or anything.
I'm not saying one way or the other, of course.
---aforementioned lawfully wedded spouse
Im going to avoid the whole
Im going to avoid the whole thread below this and start a new, hopefully more civilized one...
Surely you know of the toll increases that are coming up for discussion. Also you must surely know that not everyone has the MBTA as an option to get around on all the time. The entire north shore is serviced by some buses, a few commuter rail stops and some access to the blue line via Revere/East Boston. That pretty much means depending on where you live your stuck with driving as an option.
Not everyone lives within walking distance of multiple transit options. Not everyone has the time to deal with multiple bus transfers. We dont all have jobs that allow for being "a few minutes" late depending on what the train is doing today. Your assumption is that its either the subway or the car and its an easy choice. Thats only true if you happen to be within close distance of option number 1.
Who gets the burdens?
That question must be asked. As far as the powers that be are concerned, it is just easier to jack existing tolls instead of setting up new ones that might affect more powerful constituencies - even if it cuts off a large chunk of low-income areas from jobs, even if it prevents people from East Boston from getting to the rest of Boston.
What needs to be done, but won't because of the usual Massbackwardness, is an assessment of who drives where and who pays what. This means that people in the city, who drive less and are less wealthy if my census data are to be trusted, are getting screwed while the people who drive more and have more money continue to get a free ride.
There is a reason so many of the brass in the deciding organizations live along commuting corridors without tolls, and that has also become the reason these corridors do not bear tolls. This is no basis for a system of highway finance in any modern scheme or international sense of policy standards, yet it persists because there is no culture of comprehensive planning or best practices in MA.
Map?
It'd be neat if you had a map showing where these officials live.
Although I am by no means an expert, it seems to me that a principal consideration in changing the toll costs and locations would be not creating new costs or traffic problems. If you set up new toll booths, there will be a substantial (multi-million dollar) cost from installing those booths, reconstructing the highway lanes and ramps, etc. That means it could be a matter of years before the tolls even broke even with the setup costs.
There will also be collateral effects as traffic switches to bypass roads. Setting a new toll that can easily be avoided could cause huge traffic jams as many people try to drive around it. That could rule out some locations outright.
It's easier to jack existing tolls because that doesn't require studying or implementing new tollbooth locations and highway reconstruction.
Trying to do anything with the current toll regime that both increases revenues and reduces costs is a very difficult problem. At least Deval is trying.
Trying to do anything with
Trying to do anything with the current toll regime that both increases revenues and reduces costs is a very difficult problem. At least Deval is trying.
NO he is not, he is going for the easy answer. I realize new tolls can lead to people avoiding the toll booths! You ever try to drive down 99 in Everett during rush hour? Its insane (it also happens to be the best way for me to get to some parts of Somerville so I have to take it.) The entire area near these toll increases is already getting back logged by commuters, he is just going to make things worse as gas goes down and it becomes more feasible to take the longer route to get out of the toll.
He is increasing the pressure on those who already feel it, and it just happens to be a group that doesnt have money to pay for his upcoming expensive campaign. They also arent his neighbors and are the ones who complained about the million dollar book deal, the fancy drapes, and the Caddy because we just dont get it.
Alternatives?
I'm hearing a lot of reasons why everything is bad - the roads are too clogged, it's playing favorites to raise existing tolls - but not a lot of suggestions for ways to do things better. The transponder suggestion is interesting, but would pose its own problems -- I can't imagine it being possible to mandate transponders. I see that route as being tied up in court for decades. It would certainly require a whole new enforcement division, with their accompanying pensions.
I think we perhaps both agree that new tollbooths are an even worse answer.
Tollbooths aren't free. Highway reconstruction costs millions. Pensions for toll-takers cost millions. If you put new tolls in on, say, 93, it will cost millions of dollars now. Years from now, they may pay themselves back - or they may just pay for the pensions of the people staffing them.
Raise and link the gas tax
The more you use, the more you pay. This can even be regionally balanced for equity, based on revenue and commuting patterns . There is plenty of precedent for permanent highway funding from gasoline taxes in other states. Lots of schemes to choose from or combine to fit. Meanwhile, gas taxes establish a permanent source of funding for, say, maintenance and repair and long-term programs? Not like we need those ...
(note: I just checked gas tax costs - NH looks slightly cheaper, but they have tacked on a number of extra fees that make theirs and ours roughly equivalent. Maybe Haffner's Kicks Gas at the border because of cheaper property taxes in MA?)
Revenue opportunities
The trick with getting new revenue is finding an opportunity to raise it that doesn't in and of itself require new cost outlays. We're already paying gas taxes at the pump, and just raising them is pretty cheap in overhead. So that's a pretty good candidate.
We could certainly drum up a few million a year by enhancing enforcement as revenue. The trick is to find the cheapest way to do this. As we are all aware by now, cops are pretty expensive by many measures.
The idea of a total camera grid like London's kind of creeps me out, and I've heard some problems associated with red light cameras, but speeding cameras seem to work just fine to me. Zoom by it and get your ticket in the mail. I'd much rather get that than have to deal with some gun-toting dolt on a power trip.
They could put one up in front of my house and ding people all day. In a hurry? Go right ahead, and pay later.
I also think they should re-jigger the automobile taxes to include a weight component (as does any self-respecting sub-compact car driver).
It is possible to mandate transponders - new cars have them now
Disguised as "low tire pressure sensors" it's US law now that new cars must have a transponder in every tire (Tires manufactured since 2004 have them).
These transponders have unique identifiers (different for every wheel on every car, even)... and can be read at highway speeds.
In 2003 Michelin was reporting read distances of 24 inches, making it practical to read them when in motion from in-road sensors (the original "air pressure" application used a sensor in the wheel well at a distance of a couple of inches)
reference:
http://www.rfidsb.com/rfid-street-your-weekly-insi...
Interesting
Do you have any links to support the assertion that systems exist to read these same transmitters at highway speeds?
I'll Check the Globe and Herald Archives
Around the time of the Big Dig, there was a decision to not put in tolls on 93. One of the local dead tree papers did have a map of where various involved agency brass lived (number by town) versus where the tolls were.
Very interesting stuff - most upper management types lived in places like Hingham, Marshfield, Andover, etc. In other words, suburbs and exurbs South of the city where there were no tolls, and along I-93 North.
I'll see if I can find it.
I realize that there are start up costs with new tolls. In fact, I remember my dad saying that Oregon didn't have tolls because the cost was more than the value - in terms of the cost of the facilities, running the facilities, and the increase in accidents. This was before the transponder era, but the basic cost-benefit principles apply.
I still think it is worth examining who is expected to pay here and why and whether it is really a good idea. At first blush this just looks like yet another way to screw those who lack political clout with a veneer of "but you already are paying" excuses. You don't have to open toll plazas to raise the income tax or the gas tax either (MA gas tax isn't bad now - note all the low cost gas stations on our side of the NH border), yet I don't see either of these options on the table.
I think thats why some
I think thats why some people get defensive when they complain about tolls and the answer by people like a previous poster is "hey MBTA costs less, just use that instead" (I paraphrased but its obviously what the person meant.) It just feels like a "let them eat cake" moment. Things like this often happen, the rich and their entourage cant understand what the problem is (or maybe they dont care) and tell us to deal with it. Then the poor and their entourage (social workers ect) tell us that there are people who are worse off and cant even afford cars so we should be grateful for even having a car and the privledge to pay tolls. Im in the middle, and I am not ashamed to be in the middle. Yes I have a car, no I do not drive it if its feasible for me to take the T, yes I can afford a seven dollar toll every so often, no I can not afford it every day!
I agree we need to look into how we charge people for road usage, the first step would be mandatory transponders. Then Id want to see the South Shore get hit with tolls at every major road leading into the city, especially in those areas where there is easy access to the Red Line.
Points taken, ShadyMilkMan.
With regards to hitting the South Shore with tolls at every major road leading into the city, the people residing down there would. not stand for it. They'd raise up a ruckus as sure as the light of day....and find ways to get around it, I'm sure.
"Use the MBTA--it costs less". It's easier said than done, especially because most people don't live right smack near a train station or a bus depot. Commuting and using tolls every single day would be expensive, but so would public transportation unless one holds an MBTA pass or CharleyCard, which puts the price down some.
Paytolls--I understand why people question them and get defensive about them, especially because they do get to be expensive, and often enough, do cause massive, hair-triggering, patience-taxing traffic james, especially during the rush-hours.
With regards to hitting the
Then thats what the North Shore needs to do. We are too busy being passive aggressive about things. Politicians walk in here all the time promising to fix Peabodys downtown water problem, expanding the blue line into Lynn/Salem and all sorts of other things, and they NEVER go anywhere.
Its just not acceptable to increase costs for one region (or two) while everyone else gets a free pass. Some areas get all the junk because nobody else whats to deal with it. Cape Cod wont even allow those wind turbines down there because they are afraid it will block the view of the horizon from their precious sail boats for instance. We have this silly case of reverse Robin Hoodism going on where we steal from the middle class (and sometimes the poor) and give give give to the rich and well connected.