Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Have they considered tolls?
Have they considered tolls?
Number of toll issues
There are restrictions on the use of tolls to turnpike related costs. Also the Senate President would oppose.
Section 13: Toll roads, bridges and tunnels; authority to collect tolls; limitations; use of revenue
c) All revenue received from tolls, rates, fees, rentals and other charges for transit over or through all tolled roads, bridges or tunnels shall be applied exclusively to: (i) the payment of existing debt service on such tolled roads; and (ii) the cost of owning, maintaining, repairing, reconstructing, improving, rehabilitating, policing, using, administering, controlling and operating such tolled roads.
My guess is a money grab on the millionaires tax.
My guess
There's a few false starts but nothing significant happens.
Then, in 15 years, the I-90 span is suddenly deemed at risk of imminent failure and the state/feds grudgingly find the money to do a hastily designed, scaled down version of the project that eliminates the train and path aspects, among others.
Can we PLEASE start tolling
Can we PLEASE start tolling at the NH border (on Rt. 3, I-93 & I-95), like they do on I-95?
It's clear a LOT of daily Boston traffic is those driving to Southern NH. Why should they get a toll-free ride while taxpayers living west of Boston, off the Mass Pike pay tolls every day?!?
There are restrictions on the
How ironic.
How dare you suggest that a
How dare you suggest that a road should be paid for by the people who drive on it? We must protect drivers from paying for the infrastructure they use! We must give them all the welfare they desire. Right now the taxes they pay cover less than half of the cost of roads. It should be zero! The tolls on the pike should deposit money INTO their accounts! We must protect these brave heroes who insist on driving in a major city.
Careful what you wish for . . . .
. . . . . and remember that transit users pay less than 20 percent than the cost of the service.
Hey Spokeboy!
So you are cool with little transponders on bikes so you can pay for bike lanes?
That's awesome. You know because with your logic, if you do use your personal mode of transportation on a road, you should pay for it. Just like you said above about people using infrastructure.
I love this middle ground. It's a win win for all.
I am calling my state rep and senator to get that "Bike Lane Funding Equity" bill through the State House post-haste.
Thanks man. I am looking forward for you paying for bike lanes! I will even get one on mine.
You've tripped up
Kinopio isn't a cyclist.
He's just a bitter, bitter man who hates all motor vehicles, even those that deliver the goods he consumes.
Can you let us know how that call goes?
If not, dare I say that you should clam up.
Sounds great
Calculate a formula for (weight of vehicle) x (miles traveled) and charge everyone, from a kid's bike to a Ford Canyonero, and whether your annual bill is $4,600 or $0.11, you'll know you've paid for the wear and tear you've caused.
And it should be proportional to available infrastructure
For example from a quick Google search, we have over 77,730 miles of road in Massachusetts and 565 miles of interstate highways (I'm sure we can do a better breakdown of infra that excludes cyclists) but Boston’s current bike network includes 59 miles of off-street paths, 17.5 miles of separated bike lanes and 8 miles of on-street neighborhood routes.
I couldn't find a great breakdown of Massachusetts bike infra miles or just road/highway models in Boston to draw a comparison but I think its fairly fair to say that there is a far larger volume of car-infrastructure compared with bike infra.
So the fees need to reflect some multiplier for larger amount of infrastructure available to motorists that cyclists and other forms of transit cannot use. And another multiplier for larger costs associated with car-infra. And I guess another multiplier for more cost on maintenance.
John's gonna have a rough time on Beacon Hill without addressing those details. Equity in funding is gonna have to come with equity in infrastructure, which might be a roadblock too. Or maybe he'll realize that reactionary takes don't often translate into viable public policy.
What infrastructure can cars use that bikes can’t aside from
Interstates and a few other high speed roadways?
Bikers pay nothing aside from general taxes, which everyone pays into regardless if they’re part of the bike brigade or not.
The Big Dig
How much was spent on the Big Dig roads, bridges, and tunnels? Bike riders can't use any of them. Pennies are spent on bike lanes compared to those car-only projects.
But, as everyone seems to forget, CAR DRIVERS AND BIKE RIDERS ARE THE SAME PEOPLE.
Almost all adults who ride bikes has a driver's licenses (except Councilor Lara) and drive periodically if not frequently.
Everyone in the city benefits from the Big Dig.
Raised deck vs the gorgeous Greenway. The GLX too. How much did the GLX cost? Would have never have happened without the Big Dig.
‘Almost all adults that bike have a driver’s license’ Got a citation for this one?
I know me quoting things upsets you and all, I mean no harm
But before doing that, can you setup your criteria for citations? I'd hate to see you move the goal posts in response.
Does it have to me citations showing most cyclists have drivers licenses in Massachusetts? The US? Other countries?
Also whats the criteria on how the data was collected?
Thanks!
I feel like you answered your own question there
But I'd argue that if equity in funding and equity in infra that John is proposing goes forward, we need to factor in roads that lack bike infra and roll them in with the car exclusive networks.
We've already exhausted the bike tax debate, its time to move on and take the L.
Bike riders already pay in excess of usage
More than half of road maintenance costs are paid out of general funds, so bike riders are paying in to that just like anybody else. But before you ask about the rest of the expense, consider that bikes cause virtually no degradation to the pavement. In other words, bike riders do not create any maintenance costs at all -- 100% of that is created by motor vehicle use. So when a bike rider contributes to the general fund, and thereby pays their share of the 50+% of road maintenance so funded, they are paying for the damage caused by somebody else.
Why do you support socialism John?
Interesting
Bike riders consume no goods or services - clothing, groceries, electronics, mail, police, fire, ambulances, etc.
That's priced in to the cost of purchase
The shipping and delivery services pay taxes in to the general fund and it is passed on to bike riding consumers, along with car driving consumers. So it's covered. Economics is hard for some people, I suppose.
You forgot the /s
.
Covered in the article
Short answer: yes. Slightly less short answer: only what can be covered with existing toll structure.
So much for open
So much for open administrations and sunshine.
"....a new neighborhood being
"....a new neighborhood being developed by Harvard University" . What kind of people will they allow there to live???
Presumably, people with money.
They're one of the biggest landlords in metro Boston, so I'm guessing the answer is "anyone who has enough money for newly constructed rentals or sales." I'm sure there will be subsidized/low-income units, but I doubt Harvard will be any more charitable in the number of those built than they are legally required to be. That's not really their thing.
Unrelated Business Income
The good news, if it plays out as you predict, is that the city will be able to collect taxes on the assessed value and any income derived from it. Renting luxury housing isn't part of Harvard's core mission and doesn't come under the non-profit protection from taxation.
A big part of the problem
A big part of the problem here is that MassDOT seems to have little or no concern over the costs that are incurred by overdesigning these projects. I-90 Allston and the Sagamore Bridge projects as currently designed both ADD car capacity, resulting in much larger structures than would otherwise be required, which then lead to other engineering challenges, and significant amounts of unnecessary work.