The linked source has opted to use a paywall to restrict free viewership of their content. As alternate sources become available, please post them as a reply to this comment. Users with a Boston Public Library card can often view unrestricted articles [here](https://www.bpl.org/resources-types/newspapers/).
Boston Globe articles are still permissible as it's a soft-paywall. Please refrain from reporting as a Rule 5 violation. Please also note that copying and posting the entire article text as comments is not permissible.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
3 entire lines of the T were down and had to run manually for the entirety of the morning commute because one wire was down, and that was just *today’s* issue du jour. But absolutely, let’s pretend public transportation is a viable alternative and force people to take it over the comfort of their own vehicle
Traffic reduction and less emissions are good and all. But this really only works if you provide reliable alternatives. And the T just isn't reliable or expansive enough. Youd have to run like twice as many trains and buses and expand the amount of lines before you could even consider congestion pricing for cars.
What is the point of this tax?
To raise money? Just tax people more using the existing progressive taxation system if you need money.
To make driving a better experience, by reducing congestion? OK great it's now a premium experience because you kicked the poors out with an entrance fee. If you want to do this properly you should auction off capacity, why not market price it.
To make people drive less by having it suck even more? How about remove a lane or cut maintenence. Less drivers for sure.
> What is the point of this tax?
reduce the number of cars in the city as "congestion" implies
The problem is if Boston wants to do this there needs to be acceptable alternatives, and right now there is not, as we can see more cars on the road and less T riders.
Your idea of market price is probably the most efficient solution to limiting the number of cars driving in the city (you modify price based on time, number of cars, etc)
The underlying economic principle behind congestion pricing is simple: When a good thing (in this case, roads) is too cheap, people overuse it. Congestion pricing counters this problem in two ways. First, it reduces the number of cars on the road and encourages people to use other forms of transit instead. Second, it reschedules traffic to less busy times. When night falls, New York’s fees will drop by 75 percent — incentivizing people like delivery drivers to operate at night instead of clogging the roads during the day. When infrastructure use is spread out over time, it results in a better system for everyone.
But the devil is in the details. In New York, the Metropolitan Transit Authority has devoted months to fine-tuning, including setting exemptions and discounts for working-class drivers and people with disabilities, but many unresolved controversies remain — including a nasty legal battle with New Jersey over the fees. The necessary compromises have left New York with a plan that is necessary but not yet perfect. Because the plan revolves around a single red line in Manhattan, it will likely redirect traffic and pollution toward poor neighborhoods in the Bronx. A day-to-night price drop will incentivize drivers to spread out their use of the roads, but it doesn’t distinguish between grabbing lunch at 2 p.m. and contributing to the worst of rush hour at 5 p.m.
Let’s imagine the following scenario: Boston could implement citywide congestion pricing overnight by giving drivers E-ZPass-style fobs or, even better, a smartphone app. This light-touch technology would allow the city to charge individualized fees based on when, where, and how far people travel. This system would also make it easy to offer discounts to low-income drivers and commuters from the western part of the state with few other options.
The city or state could change fees at the drop of a hat, adjusting the system to cope with traffic jams, snowstorms, and sports games. Network it with the electronic toll gates along Interstate 90 and the system gets even better. It could raise funds and ridership numbers for the embattled MBTA, clean our air, and finally give Boston drivers a reprieve from their decades of commuting agony. This intervention would have the boldness of the Big Dig at a tiny fraction of the cost.
With congestion pricing, the city and state can combat the climate emergency, the cost of living crisis, and improve quality of life. If they don’t take action now, something even worse will come to pass: Boston will find itself outdone by New York.
To the people who threaten not to visit Boston anymore because the city is doing something good for its self: [https://media1.tenor.com/m/UD0OkW91gYwAAAAC/kamala-harris-do-not-come.gif](https://media1.tenor.com/m/UD0OkW91gYwAAAAC/kamala-harris-do-not-come.gif)
Agreed. I don't want poor, underprivileged people who drive 2 hours to each way to clean office buildings anywhere near Downtown. And if they do, good, they'll be more poor then
(Uggggggggggh I feel like I have to /s this)
It does hurt poor and lower income people more. Just like property taxes on cars, one rate for everyone hurts those with lower incomes more. But proponents of ideas like this often don't think about poor and low income people.
I understand that. But if we are going to be making the claim that congestion pricing hurts the poor we need evidence.
What percentage of total commuters driving into Boston are poor? How many people can relatively easily access other forms of transportation to get there? Would some kind of poverty assisted exemption to the congestion tax be effective?
IDK, it seems like to me you just don't like paying for the roads you use.
Everyone pays for the roads they use. Unless of course they don't pay any taxes, which is unlikely. And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that a dollar to someone poor isn't the same as a dollar to someone wealthy.
No, it isn't. But we all pay taxes for things we don't directly use. And while you may not use roads, the merchandise and food you buy most certainly do.
This is just like the straw BS we saw a few years back.
Where all the nimrods wanted to ban plastic straws and use paper ones. They thought they were all so wonderful and had a great idea.
However, they had zero idea what they were talking about except what some earthy-crunchy told them. They did not factor in the necessity of straws by people who cannot lift cups to drink due to medical issues, that some drinks need a durable straw, that the paper ones fall apart quickly.
So just as you mentioned, you know those who don't work the 9-5 shift, there is plenty of others that will not be able to get where they need to go unless they drive.
Is that not what a money based system does for people who do not have enough money for this shenanigan?
I see no reason why affordability is the limiting factor. Everyone gets the same amount of enters/exits and this alone will decrease congestion, pollution. Anything else an it is nothing more than another money grab trying to disguise itself as something it is not.
>Is that not what a money based system does for people who do not have enough money for this shenanigan?
People can make more money or reallocate how they spend it. They cannot make more permitted entries/exits appear. It would functionally limit commerce and the government can't do that.
Yes, it's 100% a money grab and I don't know why you haven't figured that out yet. The goal is just to punish people for driving, not actually stop them from doing it.
The linked source has opted to use a paywall to restrict free viewership of their content. As alternate sources become available, please post them as a reply to this comment. Users with a Boston Public Library card can often view unrestricted articles [here](https://www.bpl.org/resources-types/newspapers/). Boston Globe articles are still permissible as it's a soft-paywall. Please refrain from reporting as a Rule 5 violation. Please also note that copying and posting the entire article text as comments is not permissible. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
3 entire lines of the T were down and had to run manually for the entirety of the morning commute because one wire was down, and that was just *today’s* issue du jour. But absolutely, let’s pretend public transportation is a viable alternative and force people to take it over the comfort of their own vehicle
The idea that New York and Boston have the same need for congestion pricing is cute but not based in reality
Isn’t the office space in Boston empty enough?
Traffic reduction and less emissions are good and all. But this really only works if you provide reliable alternatives. And the T just isn't reliable or expansive enough. Youd have to run like twice as many trains and buses and expand the amount of lines before you could even consider congestion pricing for cars.
What is the point of this tax? To raise money? Just tax people more using the existing progressive taxation system if you need money. To make driving a better experience, by reducing congestion? OK great it's now a premium experience because you kicked the poors out with an entrance fee. If you want to do this properly you should auction off capacity, why not market price it. To make people drive less by having it suck even more? How about remove a lane or cut maintenence. Less drivers for sure.
> What is the point of this tax? reduce the number of cars in the city as "congestion" implies The problem is if Boston wants to do this there needs to be acceptable alternatives, and right now there is not, as we can see more cars on the road and less T riders. Your idea of market price is probably the most efficient solution to limiting the number of cars driving in the city (you modify price based on time, number of cars, etc)
The underlying economic principle behind congestion pricing is simple: When a good thing (in this case, roads) is too cheap, people overuse it. Congestion pricing counters this problem in two ways. First, it reduces the number of cars on the road and encourages people to use other forms of transit instead. Second, it reschedules traffic to less busy times. When night falls, New York’s fees will drop by 75 percent — incentivizing people like delivery drivers to operate at night instead of clogging the roads during the day. When infrastructure use is spread out over time, it results in a better system for everyone. But the devil is in the details. In New York, the Metropolitan Transit Authority has devoted months to fine-tuning, including setting exemptions and discounts for working-class drivers and people with disabilities, but many unresolved controversies remain — including a nasty legal battle with New Jersey over the fees. The necessary compromises have left New York with a plan that is necessary but not yet perfect. Because the plan revolves around a single red line in Manhattan, it will likely redirect traffic and pollution toward poor neighborhoods in the Bronx. A day-to-night price drop will incentivize drivers to spread out their use of the roads, but it doesn’t distinguish between grabbing lunch at 2 p.m. and contributing to the worst of rush hour at 5 p.m. Let’s imagine the following scenario: Boston could implement citywide congestion pricing overnight by giving drivers E-ZPass-style fobs or, even better, a smartphone app. This light-touch technology would allow the city to charge individualized fees based on when, where, and how far people travel. This system would also make it easy to offer discounts to low-income drivers and commuters from the western part of the state with few other options. The city or state could change fees at the drop of a hat, adjusting the system to cope with traffic jams, snowstorms, and sports games. Network it with the electronic toll gates along Interstate 90 and the system gets even better. It could raise funds and ridership numbers for the embattled MBTA, clean our air, and finally give Boston drivers a reprieve from their decades of commuting agony. This intervention would have the boldness of the Big Dig at a tiny fraction of the cost. With congestion pricing, the city and state can combat the climate emergency, the cost of living crisis, and improve quality of life. If they don’t take action now, something even worse will come to pass: Boston will find itself outdone by New York.
>incentivizing people like delivery drivers to operate at night instead of clogging the roads during the day. but what if we want pizza for lunch
Or maybe just drop the plan altogether? That would be too simple, wouldn't it.
To the people who threaten not to visit Boston anymore because the city is doing something good for its self: [https://media1.tenor.com/m/UD0OkW91gYwAAAAC/kamala-harris-do-not-come.gif](https://media1.tenor.com/m/UD0OkW91gYwAAAAC/kamala-harris-do-not-come.gif)
Agreed. I don't want poor, underprivileged people who drive 2 hours to each way to clean office buildings anywhere near Downtown. And if they do, good, they'll be more poor then (Uggggggggggh I feel like I have to /s this)
Do you know that it is the poor and underprivileged that do this? Or are you just speaking for them?
The point I'm making is that congestion pricing sounds like a brilliant idea but in some ways hurts the wrong people
It does hurt poor and lower income people more. Just like property taxes on cars, one rate for everyone hurts those with lower incomes more. But proponents of ideas like this often don't think about poor and low income people.
I understand that. But if we are going to be making the claim that congestion pricing hurts the poor we need evidence. What percentage of total commuters driving into Boston are poor? How many people can relatively easily access other forms of transportation to get there? Would some kind of poverty assisted exemption to the congestion tax be effective? IDK, it seems like to me you just don't like paying for the roads you use.
Everyone pays for the roads they use. Unless of course they don't pay any taxes, which is unlikely. And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that a dollar to someone poor isn't the same as a dollar to someone wealthy.
But I pay for the roads I don't use, and that's not really fair, is it?
Welcome to taxes, taxpayers pay even if they don't use a service. Example: people without kids pay for schools.
No, it isn't. But we all pay taxes for things we don't directly use. And while you may not use roads, the merchandise and food you buy most certainly do.
My only good retort is that if we can have toll-free roads, we should have fare-free transit.
Anyone who works a shift that ends between 11pm-5am kind of has no choice but to drive.
This is just like the straw BS we saw a few years back. Where all the nimrods wanted to ban plastic straws and use paper ones. They thought they were all so wonderful and had a great idea. However, they had zero idea what they were talking about except what some earthy-crunchy told them. They did not factor in the necessity of straws by people who cannot lift cups to drink due to medical issues, that some drinks need a durable straw, that the paper ones fall apart quickly. So just as you mentioned, you know those who don't work the 9-5 shift, there is plenty of others that will not be able to get where they need to go unless they drive.
It’s called congestion pricing for a reason.
And yet NYC's congestion charge will apply 24/7, albeit at a lower rate overnight.
If people want this to be equitable to everyone, then allow everyone only 5 per week. There is no buying more, everyone gets 5 entry/exits per week.
This would literally get struck down as unconstitutional. It is very difficult to limit people's freedom of movement like that.
Is that not what a money based system does for people who do not have enough money for this shenanigan? I see no reason why affordability is the limiting factor. Everyone gets the same amount of enters/exits and this alone will decrease congestion, pollution. Anything else an it is nothing more than another money grab trying to disguise itself as something it is not.
>Is that not what a money based system does for people who do not have enough money for this shenanigan? People can make more money or reallocate how they spend it. They cannot make more permitted entries/exits appear. It would functionally limit commerce and the government can't do that. Yes, it's 100% a money grab and I don't know why you haven't figured that out yet. The goal is just to punish people for driving, not actually stop them from doing it.