It hasn’t gotten much notice, and even some insiders (like Jim Aloisi) won’t acknowledge it, but a confluence of events over the last spelled an end to the Great Toll Inequity issue.
I’ve got the detailed theory in a column here.
In summary: The transportation reform bill includes a provision prohibiting use of toll revenue on any untolled road – or to pay for bonds on any untolled road. Second, the budget includes $100 million a year from the sales tax – a commitment extended for 30 years last week by the Patrick Administration, for the express purpose of paying off Pike bonds. Finally, the SJC ruled in a Fall River case that a fee must be appropriate to the service paid for; otherwise it’s a tax. Thus, they backed up the claim made in Jan Schlictmann’s class action suit that Pike tollpayers should be paid back for toll money shoveled into the Big Dig.
It’s always interesting the things that don’t get noticed in June when you legislate in secret and in haste.
You should probably look at the Fall River case again. Initially Fall River and other municipalities charged funerals a fee for a burial permit. A funeral director won at the Superior Court level with the basic argument that the fee was actually a tax because there was no way to avoid it since death is inevitable. The case was affirmed at the appellate level too.
<
p>However, recently the SJC actually reversed the decision of the lower courts on the basis that the burial permit were regulatory fees to maintain the integrity of the industry.
<
p>http://www.heraldnews.com/home…
that’s relevant to the toll situation is reiterate the distinction between fees and taxes: “In distinguishing fees from taxes, we have noted that fees tend to share common traits. Fees, unlike taxes, “are charged in exchange for a particular governmental service which benefits the party paying the fee in a manner ‘not shared by other members of society.'”
especially when it comes to transportation, which is a bundle of network externalities. Think: How valuable would the Mass. Pike be if it were not connected to other roads? Including the Big Dig.
<
p>I think the legislative remedy is the only one. Now if only they’d do the same thing for the T!
I do like those convenient on and off ramps. I just wish they didn’t come with toll booths attached. Especially that one in Sturbridge, that seems to be designed to clog traffic on even a minor holiday.
<
p>
Cash on left, fast lane on right. There might be a strategy for that fast lane in the middle, I don’t know.
<
p>What do you see that I don’t?
I’m not sure why anyone would bury this story; it sounds like good news. To me the idea of collecting tolls on a given road only to provide for that road is a no-brainer. If we want tolls to pay for the Big Dig we should erect booths at the Zakim Bridge and O’Neil Tunnel.
the Big Dig was more than the Zakim Bridge and O’Neill tunnel. It’s also the Ted Williams Tunnel and I-90 extension through South Boston.
Let’s say we have a 2 lane (each direction) highway from A to B. We can’t widen it because of geological or architectural reasons. But, we can build another road from A to B, with 2 lanes in each direction.
<
p>Now, we’ve got two roads, each 2 lanes in each direction, each the same distance, each from A to B.
<
p>You’re suggesting we should only put a toll on the new one? What will happen? Nobody will use it, except rich people when the old road is very backed up. That’s simply not functional.
<
p>The reality is that when pricing paths on a network, you can’t price them in a vacuum. You can’t ignore the impacts of differing prices on different edges (links) when there are multiple routes from an A to a B.
<
p>The Big Dig didn’t just improve throughput in those few miles surrounding the North End. The Big Dig improved throughput on both N/S and E/W highways within 30 miles of Boston, because just like traffic jams ripple through the network, eased congestion locally eases congestion in all parts of the (nearby) network as a whole. Why shouldn’t those who benefit from the Big Dig pay, even if they’re not actually driving on the Big Dig but merely benefiting from it’s construction?
<
p>Now, how much, how often, and in what form should they pay? That’s a different discussion.
In this case I’m not sure how much the Big Dig impacted the Mass Pike traffic. The former is mostly 93 N/S while the Pike is of course E/W. The one part where your example would apply here seems to be Ted Williams vis-a-vis Callahan/Sumner, but the latter is already tolled. The only alternate route that makes any sense is 128 for through traffic, and frankly if tolling 93 were to encourage through traffic to go around Boston or take public transit, that’s great. I also don’t believe diverting onto surface streets for the sake of avoiding a couple bucks toll is worth the hassle; I certainly wouldn’t do it.
… less cut and dry than structural engineering, at this point traffic engineering is a well established discipline with well understood principals. As such, I’m content to listen to (disinterested or impartial) experts in the discipline. If such a person backed up what stomv is pointing out here, I’d be fine with it.
Long experience shows that expanding highways tends to increase, rather than decrease, traffic. More drivers choose to drive, traffic from alternate routes returns to the “mainline”, and so on. The immediate impact of the Big Dig was to dramatically worsen drive-time backups on I93 north of the city. It is now routinely blocked from 128 all the way into the city each morning.
<
p>The transportation system is a system. It includes ALL the highways, all the buses, all the subways, and all the commuter rail.
<
p>Tolls (at least as we know them) are among the least effective ways to reflect this reality, and imposing further limits on their spending makes the stone axe even duller.
<
p>A gas tax is a far better proxy for highway consumption (which is, I think, the goal you seek) than tolls. Any mechanism we choose should be viewed as part of the funding for the transportation system as a whole.
<
p>It seems to me that if you want to charge for highway consumption, then you toll all limited access highways. Exactly how much depends on what exactly you want to charge for:
* miles of use (if so, tax mileage from entry to exit)
* cost of highway (if so, tax mileage but not all miles equal: city miles more expensive, bridges more expensive, etc)
* poor-approximation-congestion — tax road segments according to annual popularity (per lane mile)
* good-approximation-congestion — tax road segments according to annual popularity (per lane mile) as a function of day of week, time of day
* perfect-congestion — tax road segment now based on congestion now
<
p>All of those are better than a gas tax if you’re interested in highway consumption because the ratio of local road:highway use varies so widely.
<
p>
<
p>But that may miss the point. The reason we have tolls on highways is not because highways are so much different than local roads; rather, we don’t have tolls on local roads because we can’t with current technology.*
<
p>As long as you don’t care about fine-tuning usage with current congestion (time of day), you can accomplish charging people for their road use pretty effectively with the gas tax. Want to charge them for pollution or carbon emissions? The gas tax is really effective.
<
p>My preference:
1. Raise the gas tax
2. Expand tolls, but make them HOT. I want every road to have the capability of being a toll road in MA. But, I don’t want to always charge a toll. Congestion? Increase the toll. High MPG vehicle? Lower the toll. Carpooling? Lower the toll. Buses (public or private)? No toll ever. Use tolls as a way to keep the roads moving because rubbernecking hurts all travelers, including those using mass transit on those highways. Always make high mpg/carpooling free. HOT lanes allow for guaranteed quality of service while also providing a financial incentive to reduce the amount of fuel per passenger mile. This benefits the wealthy, but it also benefits those who make Earth-friendly choices as well as those who ride buses on the highway.
3. Use added revenue to improve mass transit and leg-powered-transit so that there are mo’better’cheaper options than driving. This helps mitigate the regressiveness of (2) while also further helping to reduce our oil consumption.
<
p>
<
p> * Oregon is playing with the idea of using a satellite to track vehicular miles, thereby taxing local road use. It’s been discussed on BMG. I hate the idea for civil-liberty and ecological reasons.
I think if we’re going to toll at all, then it should use something like a transponder embedded in the license plate. I suspect an RFID chip will work just fine. Then place receivers everywhere (as budgets permit). I think its very important to toll much more than just “limited access” highways — Route 9, Route 1, McGrath Highway, Mystic Ave, and similar thoroughfares come to mind — not to mention Beacon Street and Commonwealth Ave.
<
p>I love the idea of “hot” tolling — changing them in real-time, with electronic price-tags at roadside and perhaps echoed in attachments for the dashboard.
<
p>This technology transcends the “as we know them” qualifier I put on “tolls”, above. Such tolling technology eliminates the need for a proxy like the gas tax. On the other hand, there will surely be objections to its privacy implications (spurious, in my opinion, but they’ll still be raised).
<
p>Thus, my preference is:
<
p>1. Way-cool new tolling technology
2. Gas tax
3. Current tolls (cash & EZPass).
I’m not advocating for further expansion of highways, though I for one am glad the Big Dig happened. My philosophy with tolls is that simple fairness seems to dictate you pay for what you use. If you pay to use the Pike, your fees should go to the Pike; if we need tolls for Big Dig roads they should be collected on Big Dig roads. My point about diverting traffic out of the city or into public transit was more a side benefit rather than primary motive. If you want to redistribute funds throughout the system you use taxes rather than fees, though I have always been reluctant to support gas taxes. If we want to reduce fuel consumption we need to find a way to break the auto-oil industry juggernaut and require much greater fuel efficiency. I believe this is another area where our European and Japanese counterparts are ahead of us and I’m pretty sure American automakers already know how to accomplish this.