I travel the Pike a lot. I live in East Boston and I travel the Pike, well at least the Ted Williams Tunnel portion every day to get to work. I also use the pike to get to other parts of the city. Often getting off at Allston/Brighton to come back in via
Storrow Drive. Sometimes I make a quick U-Turn to come back through the tolls to come back into town on the Pike.
I therefore have been watching the construction of a sling shot or U-turn lane with great enthusiasm. Over the past week or so I’ve seen big tarps over the signs for the u-turn and have been anxiously awaiting it’s opening. As I truly believe this U-turn will greatly reduce traffic on the streets of Boston. Right now there is no easy way to get from the airport, Eastie or Southie to the Back Bay. What could be a 5 minute trip on the Pike takes 25 – 30 minutes via the maze that is Boston Streets.
But my optimism is short lived. The u-turn won’t open, even though it is done until January, the Boston Globe reports today. Why you ask? Because they don’t want to open it then raise tolls on it.
“Rather than establish a new toll months before the new increases are set to take effect in January, it was decided it would be easier for our customers to simply open the U-turn with a new toll in January,” said Turnpike Authority spokesman Mac Daniel.
Oh and here’s another rub. The turn will only be open to taxis and buses anyways. That is ludacris. It should be opened to anybody with a Fast Lane/EZ Pass transponder.
Construction of the $1.8 million ramp – which will be open only to taxis and buses, at least at first – stalled after the fatal Big Dig tunnel ceiling collapse last summer and after soil problems were discovered at the site. Construction was completed this month, officials said. All that remains is for the electronic toll system to be installed and lanes painted, officials said.
Yet another reason to be pissed off at the Turnpike Authority.
Only a couple of months ago, Boston Globe Starts & Stops writer Mac Daniel would have been writing in support of us poor commuters – and finding outrage in the situation. The column disappeared, and now the reason is clear.
Matt, think about what you would have written about this two months ago, and think about how you sound today.
How is it easier for customers to not be able to use the U-turn? It doesn’t even make sense from a PR standpoint. They obviously want to avoid the outcry when they raise the tolls, but did they think that no one was going to report on this for four months? What astounding incompetence.
Some time ago I heard or read that the Mass Pike has a higher cost per mile for maintenance than any other road in the nation.
Does anyone know if this is true? If so, could you provide a link? I've been unable to find one/
2 things:
First, we need – what is it? – 25 billion in highway repairs in this state? I don't think now is the time to shut down the tolls, unless people are willing to pay for it via some other form of taxation (and I don't see many calling for higher income taxes).
Second, I fail to see why the Pike tolls should be taken down, but not any of the various other tolls around town. I've made the point that the Tobin bridge is just as annoying. Others say, “well, the Pike has been paid for over and over again.” Well, so has the Tobin.
If it were up to me, I'd have no tolls and just pay for these things via other means (my personal favorite being a gas-guzzler tax on trucks and SUVs), but it's not. So there are going to be tolls so the ground on the highways and bridges of this state doesn't fall out from under us.
I don’t think the tolls are going anywhere. It seems totally unjust to me that commuters into Boston from the western suburbs get hit every day with these tolls, while commuters from the north and south shores, and even from NH below Hooksett do ont
<
p> I can dream, though, of a time when there won’t be any tolls, but the gas tax is 50 cents higher/gallon. “Conservation” and “hybrid vehicle” would enter people’s vocabulary pretty quick, I’d imagine.
Commuters from the North certainly DO get tolls. Whether I pass through the Ted Williams or Tobin Bridge, I pay $3. If I navigate about 20-35 minutes out of my way, I could get to 93 and avoid them, but I'd wager a large majority of people from the North Shore pay too. It's south of Boston that gets away with no tolls.
Commuters from the North East get tolls.
Commuters from directly north and north west generally do not.
who favors policies that discourage consuming gasoline, I'm against the Mass Pike tolls in general. I'd prefer to see the gas tax (a) increased initially and (b) automatically increased every year thereafter to replace the Mass Pike and other distance-based tolls in a revenue neutral or even revenue positive manner.
Gasoline taxes do an outstanding job of charging for use of every road, and have the added bonus of charging those who pollute more [drive gas guzzlers] and damage the road more [drive heavier vehicles] more than those who drive low polluting cars that damage the roads less and other people/vehicles less when in an accident.
Tolls on bridges and tunnels can serve as an effective congestion charge. I'm not claiming that the Boston metro bridge/tunnel tolls are doing that effectively, merely pointing out in general those sorts of tolls can be effective.
The pike generates considerable toll revenues, but a huge percentage of that money is used to collect the tolls. In addition, the pike tolls pay for their own state troopers, rather than out of the public safety budget.
<
p>
If we get rid of the whole Pike bureaucracy, move the revenues from air rights and service plazas into the state transportation budget, then raise the gas tax by the few cents required to eliminate the tolls, we could have a leaner, less expensive government.
by trying to merge MassHighway and the Mass Turnpike Authority? And wasn’t he blocked by forces in the legislature who were allies of the Tpike folks?
<
p>
All judgements of Romney aside (and I have many), this seemed like a good idea to me at the time. I wonder if anything similar is on Deval’s priority list (and if so, if he as anywhere near the legislative clout to make it happen).
The governor now has a majority on the Pike board.
Gov Patrick can do whatever he likes. Balls in his court.
The Pike is also the best maintained, cleanest, and best plowed in the state. Unfortunately is cost a small fortune.
Romney wanted to get rid of the turnpike board, and put the operation under MassHighway. However, he didn’t connect that with a plan to eliminate the tolls.
<
p>
The turnpike board may be costly, but the real cost is operating the toll infrastructure.
Stomv, what do you think of congestion pricing for entry to Boston's downtown, as is proposed for Manhattan?
about congestion pricing per se, at least as London does it and NYC is considering.
For one thing, geography has to be on your side. Manhattan is an island, London has the Thames, Boston has the Charles and the Harbor. But, if you're going to do congestion pricing, you have to draw a line and enforce every single road entrance that crosses that line. Not only is that hard, but it's an obnoxious [IMO] invasion of privacy. I don't like the idea of the government tracking how often every single auto enters and exits certain areas.
So, you can accomplish a similar objective [reduced traffic in downtown areas] with other methods, including:
* raise the parking meter rate, by a lot. A parking space is about 170 square feet, and rents for $1/hour in downtown Boston. That's some super cheap real estate. By raising the meter rates, parking becomes more expensive, and helps people choose other methods of travelling in to and out of the city.
* additional gas tax in metro area. This isn't perfect since it doesn't effect commuters quite as much, but it is somewhat effective in making it more expensive to drive in the city.
* higher tickets for parking violations, and stricter enforcement. This increases the cost of parking, like the first bullet point.
* higher tickets and levels of enforcement for moving violations too. Same idea, perhaps even more important since it also increases the overall safety level of the surface transportation network.
These are all punitive — seeking to make driving in the downtown metro more expensive/difficult. Another way to reduce congestion is to make not driving easier.
* better subways
* better buses and bus routes
* better sidewalks
* better cycling facilities
where better is any combination of cheaper, safer, faster, more comfortable, etc.
So, I think that most cities can accomplish congestion pricing schemes without actually charging vehicles for entering and exiting an area, merely by increasing the cost and inconvenience of driving in those areas, and by decreasing the cost and inconvenience of not driving in those areas.
So, I think that most cities can accomplish congestion pricing schemes without actually charging vehicles for entering and exiting an area, merely by increasing the cost and inconvenience of driving in those areas, and by decreasing the cost and inconvenience of not driving in those areas
<
p>
…its called parking fees.
<
p>
Here in Munich they have by declaring large portions of the Altstadt (the old city center) a pedestrian zone. The difference, though, that I keep beating on, between Boston and Munich is that Munich and the surrounding region has an excellent public transportation system (it’s not cheap, but it is reliable, and frequent), and Boston doesn’t.
<
p>
And Boston won’t ever, as far as I can tell.
have to be high enough to have an impact. A few quarters an hour doesn't generally register on the cost/benefit analysis for drivers.
As for pedestrian areas, Downtown Crossing in Boston is one. I'd love to see it expanded a street or two every once in a while, but I'm not down there very often and don't have any sense for the details therein.
As for Boston's public transit, of course it has plenty of room for improvement, but I have few complaints about it's service where I live [near Kenmore Square]. I think it's too expensive, but it gets me where I need to go reasonably well. It ain't pretty, but it is fairly reliable and arrives every six minutes or so during rush hour.
You are referring to on-street parking (quarters). I am referring to parking garages, which are much more expensive. Since I would be driving in from the ‘burbs, and since on-street parking is actually quite difficult to find, I’d use a garage.
<
p>
Actually, if the MBTA was anywhere near as convenient as the Munich S-Bahn system (10 minute walk to the train station and a comfortable ride into Munich), we’d use that.
<
p>
But the MBTA isn’t. The nearest MBTA station here in Wellesley is Woodland, which we would have to drive to, anyway and (ta da!) pay for parking at the Woodland station.
…the Munich S-Bahn trains have provisions for people who want to take their bicycles with them? They are not permitted to do so during commuter times (before 9AM and probably between 3-6PM) for obvious reaons–it’s inconvenient for the other passengers–but they can certainly do so at other times. And, yes, people do take advantage of that.
You can take your bike on the T at around the same times, at least according to my friend who lives in Brookline and takes her bike on it.
if $30 for 3 hour parking garages haven't stemmed the tide of traffic, nothing will. I pay $120 a month to park in Southie in a friggin industrial zone. Parking already isn't cheap. It's convenience for most people. When I lived in Chelmsford I drove, why? Because I could leave work on my schedule on my time. I didnt' have to wait for a train and if I missed the train be stuck in Boston for an extra hour.
You will be getting your way though. The formally $7.00 a day lot I parked at next to the Moakley Courthouse is being developed. The rate is now up to $11.00 a day. When those “mud lots” are gone. You are going to see close to 3000 commuters lose parking spaces. Those already overcrowded, smelly, and non existent air conditioning commuter rail lines are going to be overloaded even more. That ought to be fun.
Those…non existent…commuter rail lines are going to be overloaded even more.
<
p>
about the contrast between Boston’s virtually non-existent public transport system and Munich’s.
<
p>
The problem that you have in Boston is that you will never, ever have a functional public transport system unless the city is bombed out. Like Munich was in WWII.
No doubt Boston’s public transportation is not as good as Munich’s, but “virtual non-existent”? One would think that you have never actually stepped foot in the city.
<
p>
Boston’s system is actually quite good, at least by American standards. You can get around the city quite easily by bus and subway, and once downtown, you can get to a lot of sights just by walking. The commuter rail is fairly decent as well, although lately the trains seem to be more frequently late than they were a couple years ago. I even know one person who commutes to work by boat from the South Shore.
<
p>
From my house in Roslindale, I have a five minute walk to the nearest commuter rail station, a two minute walk to four different bus lines, and a ten minute walk to about five more bus lines. If I miss my train, I can hop on a bus and take the orange line instead.
<
p>
Ok, perhaps you cannot walk to the commuter rail from you place in Wellesley, but what do you expect that every house within a twenty mile radius of downtown is within walking distance of a subway or train station? Is that how it is in Munich? I rather doubt it. Also, Munich is more than twice the size of Boston and is probably a more important business center than Boston is as well, so I don’t know how comparable they are in any case.
Hogwash. There are two factors :availability [time it takes to find a space you like] and price. As either of those get tighter, more people will find alternatives, which range from subway to carpool to telecommute to leave the Boston metro area for a job elsewhere.
There's no question that in almost all cases, driving is more comfortable than mass transit. I'd love to see the MBTA have the budget to improve the comfort levels of their cars — as well as the frequency of runs, etc, all in an effort to make riding the T more attractive while independently, driving becomes less attractive due to gas prices and parking woes.
I contend that $7.00/day is extremely cheap, and that $11.00 a day is still extremely cheap. You're renting more than 150 square feet of space a day in a city for $7 [soon to be $11]. You're paying under $1/sq foot in Southie — my apartment in Southie was more expensive than that seven years ago, and the landlord was making three times that, since it was a three family subdivided by floor. Not precisely an apples to apples comparison, but the jist is fair: the rent paid on land for parking is generally fairly cheap relative to the value of city land. Muni lots and parking meters tend to be below market price.
You have belittled the increase in parking fees at the courthouse. But, let me ask you this. Why should a juror or a witness, or, for that matter, anyone involved in a court case have to pay exhorbitant parking fees merely to have access to the courthouse?
<
p>
Here in Munich, the two main courthouses are within walking distance of the same S-Bahn exit–Karlsplatz/Stachus. No driving required, and hence no parking required. Actually, most of Munich’s government buildings are a hop-skip-&-jump from either the S-Bahn or the U-Bahn (the subway).
That's the way to create acception for gas taxes. Eliminate tolls at the same time.
But, personally, I'd rather see something that helps people make good choices when driving, rather than just penalize anyone. That's why I suggest a gas-guzzling tax, where the worst auto-offenders are penalized the most. Furthermore, by having that kind of a tax, you could give tax breaks and incentives to energy efficient automobiles. If it cost $2,000 extra to buy a huge V8 12 mpg pos, but you get a $1000 write off for buying something with that does 40mpg or better, a lot of people will switch to smaller engines and hybrids. I think the state/country should definately move into this direction – not only will it have immediate impacts on fuel economy, but I bet it could spark a race between the auto companies to deliver cars that are more and more fuel efficient, so they're the ones that are giving their costumers tax rebates.
…but it strikes me as being ludicrous not to put tolls on the central artery tunnel. Why should east-west drivers subsidize north-south drivers via the pike tolls?
What’s Luda have to do with the pike?
<
p>
“Shake your money maker
Like somebody’s bout to pay ya
Don’t worry about them haters
Keep your nose up in the air.”
<
p>
I think it’d be ludicrous to drag the artist known as Chris Bridges into this.
<
p>
[Kidding. My spelling sucks, so I can’t talk.]
Pimp my Pike
X-zibit wouldn't it. I am in serious need of some Hip Hop lessons to keep this all stratight
Why not set a “special” toll for this turnaround now and NOT raise them in January. Then they’d be able to say “hey, at least we’re not raising the turnaround toll!”
<
p>
Seems pretty simple to me. And since this will only be open to fastlane transponders, there’s no rule that says this has to be a round number toll. It can be $1.10, $1.35, etc…