Might be time for motorists to pay a toll to drive into downtown Boston at rush hour, councilor says

Narrow and congested streets pose challenges for emergency ambulances navigating already congested areas.

Lets not forget, congestion caused by motor vehicle traffic that blocks emergency vehicles has existed long before the bus and bike lanes were installed.

Numerous constituents have voiced concerns over the narrowing of streets, due to added bus and bike lanes as well as the rise in vehicular traffic. n Furthermore, the placement of buses in the center of streets exacerbates traffic by restricting space for cars and trucks to maneuver effectively. Narrow and congested streets pose challenges for emergency ambulances navigating already congested areas.

This is just … not a thing. Traffic is caused by bottlenecks, not because there isn't enough pavement. Citation: the Harvard Bridge was reduced from 4 to 2 lanes and … traffic didn't get any worse, because the traffic there isn't caused by the number of lanes but upstream and downstream constricted areas.

There are vibes and there are data, this is vibes. Come on.

(Bus lanes and bike lanes also move way more people per linear foot, so are far more efficient.)

I'm all for congestion pricing, there are some relatively easy ways to do it:

1) Toll 93 the same way that you toll the Harbor bridges and tunnels and Turnpike. Why should how much it costs to drive depend on what direction you approach the city from? Especially since we charge more for people from Massachusetts on the Pike, while 93, especially from the north, is populated with a lot of Granite Staters freeloading off our economy so they can save money on taxes and not wear their seatbelts.
2) More focused: tax downtown parking like every other city in the country. This mostly hits people driving in on weekdays.
3) Since tolls are all electronic, you could put gantries in a few other areas (i.e. river crossings of the Charles and Neponset) and then sort of say "if you pay one toll you get one free." So if you pay a toll on the Pike we won't hit you again if you get off in Allston, cross into Cambridge, and come back across the BU Bridge. Or have several gantries along 93, if you hit any of them, you pay a toll, but if you hit more than one, it's the same toll; this keeps people from trying to get off the highway to skip the toll.

maybe even provide enough revenue to help improve public transit

I mean, yeah. There are about 175,000 daily vehicles on the Southeast Expressway and a similar number on 93 north of the city. 350,000 vehicle each paying a toll equal to what Turnpike and Harbor travelers pay ($1.25) generates $160 million per year (more, probably, assuming that trucks pay more; also, tolls should probably go up with inflation). Not everything the T needs, but not a drop in the bucket.

But, oh, noes! The poor people driving to work can't afford this!

$2.50 is 10 minutes of work at minimum wage (and if you're making minimum wage, you're probably paying minimal tax with the EITC). For most people who "need" to drive to work, wages are significantly higher. Funding better transit which will provide more time-competitive transit for those who don't "need" to drive will improve conditions for everyone. People driving are wealthier than people on transit, this is not regressive, don't @ me.

Just to clarify one point, New York City is not "considering" congestion pricing. It is a done deal, it is approved at every level, it is happening. It's being held up right now by a succession of frivolous pandering lawsuits (glares at the entire state of New Jersey) but every level of government that needs to approve it has done so. They're currently saying to expect a launch in June but who knows:

https://www.crainsnewyork.com/transportation/nyc-c...

I can afford it.

Less traffic for me to be caught in. Win win.

I appreciate the monster raving imbecilic Ho Chi Minh supporter doing this. Makes driving to work faster and thereby saves me money.

If you want people to stop driving, then you need to have a healthy MBTA (including commuter rail). People need to get into the city, and if you don't want them to drive, you need to give them reliable alternatives.

Manhattan can do this because it is an island and there are a fixed number of entry points. Are they going to put tolls on all roads that lead into Boston, or just the highways?

Could I get on at RT9 in Newton / Natick and the back roads of Dorchester to get into Boston from the West or South?

Is this for downtown or all of Boston proper? Is this to be applied to non Boston residents or all residents? How would the system know, unless they will track every car that enters Boston either through license plate readers or toll booths? What about the privacy implications of tracking all cars all the time (more so than they are already tracked).

The City can "consider" congestion pricing all it wants. But the City doesn't control the major roads into it and the City can't even get the State to fix the fucking MBTA in any meaningful way, so what hope would there be that the City can force the State to do anything it would conclude about congestion pricing?

This worked for London because 1) London is 8-10x larger than Boston and they only implemented it in "central London" (a ring of roads about the size of Allston/Brighton but with zero major roadways going in or out of it) and 2) they have Transport for London (TfL) which is a transport agency essentially run by the mayor.

And to add to our complications, "central Boston" would butt up against something like 3 or 4 other cities that would all have something to say too, I'm sure.

A for effort, but you don't need a 3-year multi-million dollar consultancy study to know that congestion pricing is never going to happen here any time in the near future without significant structural changes to how the City manages its public transit (it doesn't currently) and how the City controls the land and roads within and near it (it doesn't currently).