Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also, true about NY'ers having to take transit. It's nuts to drive into NYC due not only to congestion but COST of tolls and parking in NY. Boston SHOULD take a lesson from NY and charge 40 dollars per days to park in the city instead of 18 charged by LAZ. Or, change the pike toll at Allston to 10 dollars. The toll to cross many of the bridges and tunnels into NY is up to 12.50. MA Politicians have slowly tried to follow this lead and are slowing making headway (like installing toll gantries) but there is pushback from liberals who say it's unfair to low income people to raise tolls.
Where is it $18 to park downtown? Most garages are $30+ per day. Some, like the 60 Staniford Garage are closer to $50 per day. I know of a few lots that'll charge $22-25, but that's on the lowest end of the spectrum. Could the lower end be raised up a bit? Sure. But while it never hurts to look at successes in NYC, it's important to realize the two are not equals. There simply isn't the same level of demand for parking in Boston as there is in NYC. Nor is congestion nearly as bad here as in NYC. So economics 101 would indicate that parking won't be as pricey here as it is there and there's less incentive not to drive. Metered parking should be more expensive during the workday and fines should be jacked up. Often times people just deal with getting tickets because it's not all that much more expensive than the garage.
There's really no need to cite any party or political view as the "problem" with tolls. The overarching resistance is purely selfish - people don't want to pay more money and it's as simple as that. That stance is not partisan, nor does is it restricted to wealth, race, etc. And for every "it's unfair to the poor" argument, there are plenty of conservative "I don't need TAXACHUSETTS taking more of my hard earned money!" arguments. Basically, nobody wants to pay more even though it's the right thing to do. At least put equivalent tolls to the Pike on 93 so nobody's getting a free ride into the city. That always blew my mind.
Where is it $18 to park downtown? Most garages are $30+ per day. Some, like the 60 Staniford Garage are closer to $50 per day. I know of a few lots that'll charge $22-25, but that's on the lowest end of the spectrum. Could the lower end be raised up a bit? Sure. But while it never hurts to look at successes in NYC, it's important to realize the two are not equals. There simply isn't the same level of demand for parking in Boston as there is in NYC. Nor is congestion nearly as bad here as in NYC. So economics 101 would indicate that parking won't be as pricey here as it is there and there's less incentive not to drive. Metered parking should be more expensive during the workday and fines should be jacked up. Often times people just deal with getting tickets because it's not all that much more expensive than the garage.
There's really no need to cite any party or political view as the "problem" with tolls. The overarching resistance is purely selfish - people don't want to pay more money and it's as simple as that. That stance is not partisan, nor does is it restricted to wealth, race, etc. And for every "it's unfair to the poor" argument, there are plenty of conservative "I don't need TAXACHUSETTS taking more of my hard earned money!" arguments. Basically, nobody wants to pay more even though it's the right thing to do. At least put equivalent tolls to the Pike on 93 so nobody's getting a free ride into the city. That always blew my mind.
LAZ, Seaport. Congress St. Easy walk to financial district. Check it out:
That's not a great comparison. CT and NJ are NYC arbitrage. In Massachusetts, Boston props up the rest of the state. Exclude the 128 belt and Massachusetts has mostly been a debacle. The failed Massachusetts cities have not performed the way Boston has performed. You can say exactly the same thing about NYC vs, say, Hartford/Waterbury, Camden, or the rest of the list of NJ and CT disasters. The rich get richer. The poor get poorer. Outside of the projects, there aren't all that many poor people inside 128.
I 100% agreed but everyone on this board will tell you how much better and how okay Mass cities are...how Lowell Springfield Worcester and New Bedford are improving when the reality is they're seeing construction...and some experiments simply because the national economy is jto. We all know the social deterioration in these cities is continuing on and that's not changing. We all know the kids aren't more educated now than they were 15 years ago relative to their peers, we. All know they dot have sustainable economies
yet I'm going off word that were doing better than similar states. (CT and NJ and RI are as close to MA as it gets nationwide even if they are different.) and as Deval kept us from imploding during the GR I guess I'd credit him with a lot of this seeing as he was an 8 year governor who would have easily won a third term.
That's a Street View image from 5 years ago (and could easily have been a weekend rate)... Their website lists it at $30 daily. $27 for the "early bird" rate.
Where is it $18 to park downtown? Most garages are $30+ per day. Some, like the 60 Staniford Garage are closer to $50 per day. I know of a few lots that'll charge $22-25, but that's on the lowest end of the spectrum. Could the lower end be raised up a bit? Sure. But while it never hurts to look at successes in NYC, it's important to realize the two are not equals. There simply isn't the same level of demand for parking in Boston as there is in NYC. Nor is congestion nearly as bad here as in NYC. So economics 101 would indicate that parking won't be as pricey here as it is there and there's less incentive not to drive. Metered parking should be more expensive during the workday and fines should be jacked up. Often times people just deal with getting tickets because it's not all that much more expensive than the garage.
There's really no need to cite any party or political view as the "problem" with tolls. The overarching resistance is purely selfish - people don't want to pay more money and it's as simple as that. That stance is not partisan, nor does is it restricted to wealth, race, etc. And for every "it's unfair to the poor" argument, there are plenty of conservative "I don't need TAXACHUSETTS taking more of my hard earned money!" arguments. Basically, nobody wants to pay more even though it's the right thing to do. At least put equivalent tolls to the Pike on 93 so nobody's getting a free ride into the city. That always blew my mind.
Having watched MA politics for almost two decades, it most certainly is a political issue. The minute any rep starts talking about gas tax, or tolls, there is noise from everywhere about why this is unfair and the wrong way to go. You're right - republicans don't like raised taxes either. But 😆😆😆 let's be realistic - no republican is going to dictate what eventually becomes law in Massachusetts. I know, I know, Baker is a republican, but he's a RHINO. The simple truth is the politicians in MA are AFRAID to take that next step which could really make serious changes to infrastructure. This would entail:
1) Raising the state income tax - need to change the constitution to do this;
2) Immediately make more painful to drive and park in Boston - I'm not a city planner, but the state could absolutely hire experts to figure this out and amke it work in phases over likely less than a decade.
I am tired of hearing progressives complaining that we need to embrace desirable aspects of foreign nations, like a smaller carbon foot print per resident, and then they poo poo the means to get there.
1) and 2) above will get us there. It's just that no one generation wants to be the group that puts forth the investment. And they have no problem telling their reps that.
No public transit system is ALWAYS on time. But, the MTA has a MUCH better track record than the T and has as long as I've been in Boston.
I commuted to NYC from LI years ago before moving to B-ton, and watched my Dad do the same as far back as I can remember. Unless something has changed radically in the past 10 yrs. the LI trains are on time down to the minute for the VAST majority of days. If they are not, it's an unusual occurrence. Here, it's just another day at the races and everyone knows it.
Anyone who has grown up in the metro tri-state area who listens to any morning drive station - from z-100 to WOR- you'll know that like clockwork there are news updates that state, "LIRR, NJ Transit and Metro North are all running on or close..." Right along with "alternate side of the street parking rules are in effect in all 5 boroughs..." 😁
On or close. That means On or close to schedule. Those are words you will hear broadcast pretty much every weekday morning absent some significant incident.
You won't normally hear about delays due to:
Signal problems
Disabled train
Medical Emergency
Ongoing track work
Frozen signals
Weather
There are challenges MA has that NY may not. 1) CSX I believe owns or owned the Worcester line so schedules were in hands of the freighters. Not sure if that's still true. 2) Incredibly outdated failing equipment that is in need of complete replacement - B-ton does have the oldest subway system in the country. 3) Because of 2, weather wreaks havoc on the system. We need new public transit infrastructure across the board and that will cost $$$$$$$. And, 4) LIRR, MN, and NJ Transit all have electric lines, except far east LI - not sure if that makes for better reliability.
Also, true about NY'ers having to take transit. It's nuts to drive into NYC due not only to congestion but COST of tolls and parking in NY. Boston SHOULD take a lesson from NY and charge 40 dollars per days to park in the city instead of 18 charged by LAZ. Or, change the pike toll at Allston to 10 dollars. The toll to cross many of the bridges and tunnels into NY is up to 12.50. MA Politicians have slowly tried to follow this lead and are slowing making headway (like installing toll gantries) but there is pushback from liberals who say it's unfair to low income people to raise tolls.
Of course, first the T should be upgraded before our drivers are seriously penalized. Once the state spends the required money on T, all bets should be off for anyone daring to take a car into Boston.
So, all fixable but it will take serious dough, bold ideas, and commitment from residents in the form of major tax increases probably. I'm ok with that, our taxes in MA are relatively low compared to other blue states.
I can attest to the "on or close" thing and timeliness. I was just in NYC and my wife is from Maplewood. I've spent time with her friends in Washington Heights, visited St. John University, hung out in Harlem, and seen my pals in Flushing and Bensonhurst, I've taken LIRR form Laguardia, driven thru NYC and listen to z100 and power 105 etc...fhe stuff that happens here with the train 's literally like DOESN'T happen With any regularity there. Nothing more to say about that.
Boston can't charge more for tolls or congestion because the rail network can't handle it. They'd need to update that FIRST orbit will really really hurt the economy. So congestion pricing is off the table as are higher tolls. The Mayor and governor understand that much.. that's why they don't push for it
That's a Street View image from 5 years ago (and could easily have been a weekend rate)... Their website lists it at $30 daily. $27 for the "early bird" rate.
I can attest to the "on or close" thing and timeliness. I was just in NYC and my wife is from Maplewood. I've spent time with her friends in Washington Heights, visited St. John University, hung out in Harlem, and seen my pals in Flushing and Bensonhurst, I've taken LIRR form Laguardia, driven thru NYC and listen to z100 and power 105 etc...fhe stuff that happens here with the train 's literally like DOESN'T happen With any regularity there. Nothing more to say about that.
Boston can't charge more for tolls or congestion because the rail network can't handle it. They'd need to update that FIRST orbit will really really hurt the economy. So congestion pricing is off the table as are higher tolls. The Mayor and governor understand that much.. that's why they don't push for it
MBTA Commuter Rail is 91% OTP. MetroNorth is 89% and LIRR is 94%. So MTA lines operate on 91.5% bd MBTA 91%. That is not a significant difference.
MBTA Commuter Rail is 91% OTP. MetroNorth is 89% and LIRR is 94%. So MTA lines operate on 91.5% bd MBTA 91%. That is not a significant difference.
LIRR defines late at 6 minutes. MBTA at 5 minutes. I imagine they're the same performance if you used the same benchmark. This isn't the right forum for another of my rants about awful Connecticut rail. Westerly RI to NY Penn is a disgrace.
1) Raising the state income tax - need to change the constitution to do this;
2) Immediately make more painful to drive and park in Boston - I'm not a city planner, but the state could absolutely hire experts to figure this out and amke it work in phases over likely less than a decade.
I am tired of hearing progressives complaining that we need to embrace desirable aspects of foreign nations, like a smaller carbon foot print per resident, and then they poo poo the means to get there.
1) and 2) above will get us there. It's just that no one generation wants to be the group that puts forth the investment. And they have no problem telling their reps that.
Massachusetts can raise taxes whenever they want. It's a flat tax so everyone bears equal pain. The flat state income tax and Prop 2 1/2 have done a great job slowing down the bloat that plagues blue states with graduated income taxes and unfettered property tax increases. Cities & towns have had to live within the constrains of Prop 2 1/2 since the 1970s. The public sector unions know that towns aren't going to vote for overrides to hand out big raises and increase benefits.
I'm not sure how you can make it more painful to drive & park in Boston.
The Massachusetts problem is that social services for the poor eat up more than half the budget. The bottom 20% consume more than half of state resources. Medicaid and CHIP kid Medicaid is 25.6% of the budget. Cash transfers to poor cities and towns to prop up their K-12 is 15.4%. Welfare is 6.4%. After spending all of that and then having to run the state, there's little left for infrastructure investment. I'm not saying we should let poor people go homeless, starve, or be denied health care but generational poverty is an enormous drag brake on the state.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
