TOLLROADSnews: Massachusetts now looking to do new tolls (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6672)
QuoteUnder a new transportation funding bill passed recently in Massachusetts the state DOT will reinstate tolls for passenger vehicles on the western end of the Turnpike - from the New York State line to Interchange 6 near Chicopee in the Springfield area. In addition the law instructs MassDOT to study and report on new tolls on the state's borders with the thought of tolling mainly interstate traffic.
So much for the remaining tolls up to Weston (I-95/MA 128) coming down circa 2017.
And it doesn't end there: They're also studying the possibility of tolling other highways at the state borders (not just limited-access, but surface arterials too!). If this goes through, good luck shunpiking your way into there.
Quote from: Henry on August 02, 2013, 09:50:24 AM
not just limited-access, but surface arterials too!
Wait for a more reliable source than ToLLRoaDZNeWZ before becoming outraged.
Quote from: Henry on August 02, 2013, 09:50:24 AM
And it doesn't end there: They're also studying the possibility of tolling other highways at the state borders (not just limited-access, but surface arterials too!). If this goes through, good luck shunpiking your way into there.
Already have.
US 20 NY: MA 102/ NY SR 980D to NY 22, MA/NY 295
US 7 CT: CT SR 819/MA 7A, CT/MA 41, CT 272/Norfolk Rd, CT/MA 183, CT/MA 8,
US 7 VT: MA/VT 8 to VT 9 CT/MA/US 10/202
I-91 CT: US 5, CT/MA 192, CT/MA 220, CT/MA 159, CT/MA 75, CT/MA 187, CT/MA/10 & US 202
I-91 VT: US 5, MA 10 to MA/NH 63 to NH/VT 119 to US 5
I-84: Mashapaug Rd to Holland Rd to US 20, CT/MA 32, CT/MA 19
I-395: CT/MA 12, CT/MA 193
MA/RI: 146: MA/RI 122
NH US 3: MA/NH 3A
NH I-93: MA/NH 28
RI I-295: MA/RI 120
RI I-95: US 1, US 1A
NH I-95 and NH US 1: MA/NH 1A, NH 107 to NH/MA 150
I-195: US 6, US 44
MA/RI 24: MA/RI 138, MA/RI 81
Regardless of whether this is true or not...I live near the MA/NH border in the area of US 3 and I-93, and this would really make everyone I know upset.
----------------------
Comment added 8/4/13
----------------------
Would definitely suck big time. If it's true, probably an attempt (in part) to suck money from other states /especially NH/ to get people to do stuff (shopping etc.) in MA. For us in far northern MA it would be terrible because the closest malls are in NH (generally) and the state of MA would just want us to drive farther or pay a stupid toll.
Quote from: NE2 on August 02, 2013, 09:55:18 AM
Quote from: Henry on August 02, 2013, 09:50:24 AM
not just limited-access, but surface arterials too!
Wait for a more reliable source than ToLLRoaDZNeWZ before becoming outraged.
No need. Every news source in the state had the same story.
Welcome back, Taxachusetts.
Quote from: SidS1045 on August 04, 2013, 11:08:21 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 02, 2013, 09:55:18 AM
Quote from: Henry on August 02, 2013, 09:50:24 AM
not just limited-access, but surface arterials too!
Wait for a more reliable source than ToLLRoaDZNeWZ before becoming outraged.
No need. Every news source in the state had the same story.
Got a link other than TRN that lists US 1 or US 20? The only non-freeway I see in this article (http://www.tauntongazette.com/news/x1806119738/Interstate-tolls-in-the-works-for-highways) is US 7.
Quote from: SidS1045 on August 04, 2013, 11:08:21 PM
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."
holy fuck New Zealand
I would like to see a source too. The only article I ever read on it from a news source was boston.com's article, which just said "tolls at the state line" with nothing more specific.
Being that I cross the NH/MA border along US 3 for work, the proposal to set tolls at the borders does not sit well with me. But until this actually goes through, I am not going to get outraged. Maybe it might be a relatively inexpensive (say, $0.50 each way), or there might be a commuter discount for NH residents.
Besides, I don't think they could erect a toll plaza on the surface roads, anyway. In the case of where Middlesex Turnpike (Tyngsboro) turns into Daniel Webster Highway (South Nashua), there isn't enough room, especially with the shopping centers on the sides (Pheasant Lane Mall on one side, and the plaza that formerly housed the Trader Joe's on the other). Also, since people come from MA to shop in NH tax-free, such a move would more likely end up hurting the Granite State.
Somehow, if toll booths or gantries were to be erected at the state lines; I could only see this happening along the major highways and
not the local roads.
On the flip-side, I do recall reading an article a year or two ago (from the
Boston Herald) that NH was proposing to place a toll booth along I-93 near the MA state line. Needless to say the negative comments/protests largely came from neighboring Massachusetts. But yet, if the OP's link is valid, the Bay State's now considering similar.
Quote from: NE2 on August 02, 2013, 09:55:18 AMWait for a more reliable source than ToLLRoaDZNeWZ before becoming outraged.
Good point. If this were 100% valid/confrimed, then the
Boston Herald would've been all over this already and Howie Carr would've had a field day reporting this.
Quote from: SidS1045 on August 04, 2013, 11:08:21 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 02, 2013, 09:55:18 AM
Quote from: Henry on August 02, 2013, 09:50:24 AM
not just limited-access, but surface arterials too!
Wait for a more reliable source than ToLLRoaDZNeWZ before becoming outraged.
No need. Every news source in the state had the same story.
Welcome back, Taxachusetts.
Yup, Taxachusetts is back! Higher gas taxes and more!
Quote from: Janko Dialnice on August 05, 2013, 10:00:24 AM
Being that I cross the NH/MA border along US 3 for work, the proposal to set tolls at the borders does not sit well with me. But until this actually goes through, I am not going to get outraged. Maybe it might be a relatively inexpensive (say, $0.50 each way), or there might be a commuter discount for NH residents.
Besides, I don't think they could erect a toll plaza on the surface roads, anyway. In the case of where Middlesex Turnpike (Tyngsboro) turns into Daniel Webster Highway (South Nashua), there isn't enough room, especially with the shopping centers on the sides (Pheasant Lane Mall on one side, and the plaza that formerly housed the Trader Joe's on the other). Also, since people come from MA to shop in NH tax-free, such a move would more likely end up hurting the Granite State.
I live in the US 3/I-93 area and cross the line frequently. Such a move would get me outraged a lot! I wonder if they're partially doing this to hurt New Hampshire's tax free shopping and all (there are malls right off of US 3 and I-93 at the state lines).
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 05, 2013, 10:19:51 AM
Somehow, if toll booths or gantries were to be erected at the state lines; I could only see this happening along the major highways and not the local roads.
On the flip-side, I do recall reading an article a year or two ago (from the Boston Herald) that NH was proposing to place a toll booth along I-93 near the MA state line. Needless to say the negative comments/protests largely came from neighboring Massachusetts. But yet, if the OP's link is valid, the Bay State's now considering similar.
Quote from: NE2 on August 02, 2013, 09:55:18 AMWait for a more reliable source than ToLLRoaDZNeWZ before becoming outraged.
Good point. If this were 100% valid/confrimed, then the Boston Herald would've been all over this already and Howie Carr would've had a field day reporting this.
NH did propose a toll along the state line back in I believe 2010...but it got cancelled due to various protests from both sides of the state line and they went with issuing bonds instead.
It still astounds me that they propose this before proposing tolling the actual O'Neill Tunnel users for its cost (as opposed to just tolling Mass Pike users for it).
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 05, 2013, 02:02:49 PM
It still astounds me that they propose this before proposing tolling the actual O'Neill Tunnel users for its cost (as opposed to just tolling Mass Pike users for it).
Yeah, that would be a better idea because WAYY more people use that than the state line ones /save I-93 and I-95/, and there are lots of businesses on the other ends of the state lines that would suffer. What they could also do is change the HOV lane on I-93 to a HOT lane and maybe extend it a bit.
Can we wait to complain about this until it's actually formally proposed? We still haven't even gotten confirmation of what locations that state will be studying tolling, if they do so at all.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 05, 2013, 08:27:15 PM
Can we wait to complain about this until it's actually formally proposed? We still haven't even gotten confirmation of what locations that state will be studying tolling, if they do so at all.
We could...but it's Massachusetts and I live near the NH border and don't like this idea, so I still
want to rant over it anyways. :P
Tolls:
I-90 - One time border toll. Let the locals ride their section for free, and still grab the out of state traffic.
MA 2 - No good alternatives for most traffic. The con would be relatively low volumes - is it going to cost more to put up the tollbooth and maintain it than it will ever give back?
US 20 - This would have to be located on the NY side to avoid tolling residents near the border. Will NY be okay with that?
US 7 - MA 7A would have to be cut off for this to work. But Main St. connects to 7A north of the border. I think there are too many shunpikes of approximately equal travel time for this to make sense.
US 202 - Toll it at the border, people will shift to CT 168. Toll it at the top of the notch, risk losing the land to CT where it belongs. ;)
CT 75 and 159 - And 187, etc. etc. Too many streets to make the west side of the river work.
I-91 - Longmeadow will be pissed off by diversions onto US 5. (Can't toll 5, too many other streets.) Would have to be all-electronic in order to be effective at keeping through traffic on the road.
I-84 - Probably the best free road for a tolling candidate.
I-395 - 193 is an easy shunpike, but I don't expect it to be done en masse. 395 has moderate traffic volumes at worst, so shouldn't back up regardless of the tolling solution. But that also means lower revenue than some other locations.
RI 146 - Too much of this traffic is local and will use other streets.
I-295 and I-95 - Both or neither. I'd put the tolls between Exits 2 and 3 on 95, but it's lose-lose on 295 - put it past US 1, and you'll just dump traffic on US 1 to I-495. Put it by the border, and I-95 traffic will jump on US 1 to 295 and back onto 95. Also, regional traffic will tend to use I-84 as opposed to I-95.
I-195 - US 44, US 6, RI 114-103 - too many alternate routes
RI 24 - Already going to be a bridge toll, so why not a second one? Would have to be in RI to avoid losing traffic to MA 81 - though that would be the local traffic, not the "interstate traffic" they seek.
I-95 - US 1 gets too clogged to be effective, so this should work fine.
I-93 - The biggest drawback here is actually environmental, up at the north end. Would have to be all-electronic to avoid disturbing any right of way. Commuters will flock to NH 28, and hate themselves daily. But who cares about exiled Bostonians?
US 3 - No matter where you put the toll, traffic will use the old road to divert around it, particularly if they're commuters. People who hate tolls are already using I-93 instead of US 3 to the Everett - tolling I-93 might actually bring more traffic back here. Worth a thought.
I-91 - I don't see any road as high-volume enough between 91 and 3 to warrant consideration. 91 itself has a long distance between exits, so even though 5 is serviceable, most traffic won't bother. Do it.
US 7 - No other realistic alternatives. Do it.
Quote from: Steve on August 05, 2013, 09:32:55 PM
I-91 - Longmeadow will be pissed off by diversions onto US 5. (Can't toll 5, too many other streets.) Would have to be all-electronic in order to be effective at keeping through traffic on the road.
If you really want to piss off Longmeadow, you could put a toll just to the north where US 5 hops onto I-91.
Please note, the following is my opinion here.
Quote from: Steve on August 05, 2013, 09:32:55 PM
I-93 - The biggest drawback here is actually environmental, up at the north end. Would have to be all-electronic to avoid disturbing any right of way. Commuters will flock to NH 28, and hate themselves daily. But who cares about exiled Bostonians?
Also, do consider the locals who use it to get to relatives who are very close by, to go to the store, etc. And also the businesses in Salem - MA/NH 28 may become a notorious road for severe backups due to the shopping PLUS the shunpikers. Also...I wonder if they'd actually think of MA/NH 28 via MA 213 as a shunpike and proceed to place the toll between exits 46 and 47. That would really annoy me and my family (and many others) because my exit is 46, most of our relatives are via 47/48. Ugh. Would hate to use backroads every time.
Quote from: Steve on August 05, 2013, 09:32:55 PM
US 3 - No matter where you put the toll, traffic will use the old road to divert around it, particularly if they're commuters. People who hate tolls are already using I-93 instead of US 3 to the Everett - tolling I-93 might actually bring more traffic back here. Worth a thought.
Would also hurt the South Nashua business district. Like MA/NH 28 in Methuen/Salem, the Middlesex Turnpike would get jammed and nobody would go there because they wouldn't want to sit in traffic.
Quote from: Steve on August 05, 2013, 09:32:55 PM
I-95 - US 1 gets too clogged to be effective, so this should work fine.
If this is for Salisbury/Seabrook and not Attleborough/Pawtucket...give me a break. You have the Hampton tolls a few miles ahead, then you have the Maine Turnpike. All this would do is get travelers ticked off. Wrong place to put a toll given the amount of tourists. If one does go up here it had better be all electronic, or those backups Hampton used to have would return. I remember the Hampton nightmare, thank god (well technically NHDOT but whatever) they have an OTR there now, traffic is way better.
------------------
What I think is worthy of tolling is the Big Dig. It's one of the most expensive construction projects ever, it'll be fine to toll everyone who uses it on a regular basis without hurting other states' economy, tourism, and locals. Anyways...MassDOT wants the tolls, but virtually NOT in their immediate backyard. It's like the people who want the wind farms, they'd rather have them by nice lakes and oceans than in their cities. (No offense to anybody.) It's stupid! If you want to raise revenue, don't hurt the locals of other parts of the region! Another idea...put an HOT lane on I-93 and I-90.
Quote from: MVHighways on August 05, 2013, 10:10:20 PM
It's like the people who want the wind farms, they'd rather have them by nice lakes and oceans than in their cities. (No offense to anybody.)
WTF? It's the 1%ers who don't want wind farms by their private lakes and oceanfronts.
Would they even work in cities, or is airflow too turbulent?
Quote from: NE2 on August 05, 2013, 10:27:53 PM
Quote from: MVHighways on August 05, 2013, 10:10:20 PM
It's like the people who want the wind farms, they'd rather have them by nice lakes and oceans than in their cities. (No offense to anybody.)
WTF? It's the 1%ers who don't want wind farms by their private lakes and oceanfronts.
Would they even work in cities, or is airflow too turbulent?
I really don't want to get in a big political debate here. But this is my opinion: a wind turbine would generate noise and disturb locals....plus it would decrease property value. Not a good idea in those types of areas. IMO if they wind energy supporters want these wind farms, they might as well put it in their own cities instead of piss everyone off near the lakes. Oh...and I do know there are regular people who don't want wind farms by their lakes/oceanfronts. And there's a reason.
End opinion rant.
Oh, one thing. But based on climatological data they
could work in the
immediate Boston metropolitan area, I think it's the windiest metro in the US (sorry Chicago). (Milton, Mass. at Blue Hill not far outside Boston is the windiest city in the US I think). However it still probably won't be too effective.
Quote from: MVHighways on August 05, 2013, 11:50:59 PM
I really don't want to get in a big political debate here.
So why are you spouting political talking points?
[edit]Total failure on your part: http://www.cityofboston.gov/environmentalandenergy/conservation/wind.asp
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2005/05/bostons-first-wind-turbine-serves-as-example-30153
Quote from: NE2 on August 05, 2013, 11:53:49 PM
Quote from: MVHighways on August 05, 2013, 11:50:59 PM
I really don't want to get in a big political debate here.
So why are you spouting political talking points?
[edit]Total failure on your part: http://www.cityofboston.gov/environmentalandenergy/conservation/wind.asp
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2005/05/bostons-first-wind-turbine-serves-as-example-30153
Whatever. I'm too tired for this.
----------
Anyways. To a note over the Big Dig tolling instead of the state lines, and the HOT lanes. People around here don't like traffic or fees, I wonder how well it would sit with commuters, but I think it's a great idea. You can pay $5-10 dollars and save an hour or so off rush hour commute. WHO WOULDN'T LIKE THAT? Oh yeah, the cheap@$$es of the Boston area. These same people generally want stuff as long as it is not in their backyard!
Quote from: MVHighways on August 05, 2013, 11:50:59 PM
a wind turbine would generate noise and disturb locals....plus it would decrease property value. Not a good idea in those types of areas.
Quote from: MVHighways on August 06, 2013, 01:27:16 AM
These same people generally want stuff as long as it is not in their backyard!
Am I the only one confused by the cognitive dissonance here?
PS: I think tolling the Big Dig is a great idea. But your wind farm argument is just stupid.
Something that has thus far been lost in this conversation: has it been announced/reported/written WHY this tolling is being considered, and what would be done with the toll revenue?
Given that the state got saddled with a lot of cost from the Big Dig, it doesn't surprise me that they would want some toll revenue. Along those lines, and as others have mentioned, tolling I-93 through downtown Boston would be a very good idea.
QuoteUS 7 - No other realistic alternatives. Do it.
If you're referring to at the Vermont border, there are also no realistic locations to put the toll gantry. You're basically right in the village of Williamstown once you cross the state line from Vermont. Unless you put it south of the village, but that would defeat the purpose not to mention drivers would use MA 43 instead.
Quote from: MVHighways on August 05, 2013, 11:50:59 PM
...But this is my opinion: a wind turbine would generate noise and disturb locals
Just to point out, wind turbines are generally very quiet. For those near a potential project, a quick trip to an existing wind farm, standing underneath the wind turbines, and having a perfectly fine conversation is a good convincer that those things don't much much noise.
Quote
plus it would decrease property value.
Doesn't that translate into lower taxes?
For that matter, nearly everything is claimed to lower property values. Rarely do lower property values actually occur.
Quote from: Steve on August 05, 2013, 09:32:55 PMI-84 - Probably the best free road for a tolling candidate.
Wrong, the Strubridge toll plaza with the Pike (I-90) is only 7 miles from the border and I have indeed seen eastbound 84 traffic grdilock extend as far back as the CT state line at times.
Quote from: Steve on August 05, 2013, 09:32:55 PMI-91 - I don't see any road as high-volume enough between 91 and 3 to warrant consideration.
Typo. alert: I believe you meant to say 91 and
5.
As far as tolls along the Big Dig section of I-93 itself; the only proposal I would suggest would be to place a ORT
HOT/Express toll for southbound traffic just before Exit 26 and a northbound ORT
HOT/Express toll just before Exit 20. I would also recommend converting the Allston toll plaza along the Pike (I-90) into a one-way eastbound so that those coming from either I-93, the Tobin Bridge or the Airport aren't hit twice. Set
all toll facilities into Boston at either $2.50 or $3 inbound toll; which is lower than the current inbound toll of $3.50 for the 2 tunnels (Sumner & Williams) and Tobin Bridge.
Disclaimer Note: I would only support the above if the revenue raised
only goes towards the roads being tolled (I-93 & I-90) and not some general transportation fund. The
Robbing Peter to Pay Paul is what caused the revenue shortfall in the first place in most instances.
How about we all just
shut up about this wind farm debate? Everyone has the right to their opinion. Back to the original topic!
----------------
Quote from: froggie on August 06, 2013, 08:19:02 AM
Given that the state got saddled with a lot of cost from the Big Dig, it doesn't surprise me that they would want some toll revenue. Along those lines, and as others have mentioned, tolling I-93 through downtown Boston would be a very good idea.
Exactly the reason why they should put tolls there and not at the state lines. Well actually there are many others, but you made a great point with the costs.
CT has been raising trial balloons about state-line tolls for a while now. Maybe we need some work toward a non-proliferation treaty.
Quote from: MVHighways on August 06, 2013, 10:21:08 AM
Did I just get my ass handed to me in this wind farm debate? Everyone has the right to their opinion. Back to the original topic!
fixed that for ya.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 06, 2013, 12:10:37 PM
Quote from: MVHighways on August 06, 2013, 10:21:08 AM
Did I just get my ass handed to me in this wind farm debate? Everyone has the right to their opinion. Back to the original topic!
fixed that for ya.
Lol. I have other reasons against wind farms, but I'm going to remain silent about that. This is a
ROADGEEK forum,
NOT a
POLITICAL forum.
Quote from: kurumi on August 06, 2013, 10:44:30 AM
CT has been raising trial balloons about state-line tolls for a while now.
Be careful they don't float into the wind farms.
Quote from: froggie on August 06, 2013, 08:19:02 AM
Something that has thus far been lost in this conversation: has it been announced/reported/written WHY this tolling is being considered, and what would be done with the toll revenue?
Yes, the legislature directed MassDOT to study state line tolls (but NOT at any specific location, as of yet) as part of their recently passed transportation funding bill. The revenue is intended to offset the additional increases in various taxes that Governor Patrick proposed but the legislature repeatedly shot down.
The money goes toward bailing out the MBTA (thus no additional fare hikes in the immediate future), funding several transit expansion projects, notably the Green Line extension to Medford, rebuilding Government Center, finishing the new commuter rail lines to Fall River and New Bedford that are currently in the design phase (Patrick's original plan allocated money for finishing these, as well as purchasing new vehicle fleets, and adding rail service from Boston as far as Springfield), and various other projects, as well as expanded highway maintenance funds, and the money to complete multiple proposed/planned/in-design highway projects. Which projects it pays for I'm not sure though. The Governor's plan paid for rebuilding BOTH of the 93/95 interchanges, a variety of things under the Accelerated Bridge Program, and the dispersal of more than a billion dollars to municipalities for state-aid projects.
Random dumb idea: toll the Bourne and Sagamore Bridges, and offer Barnstable, Dukes, and Nantucket County residents EZ Pass tags that exempt them.
Because hosing tourists is much more fun than hosing people who are merely from out of state!
The Cape Cod Squad can afford to pay anyway. They'll probably go for it to keep out the riff-raff.
Hey, how's this for an idea? Install wind turbines (and solar panels) on a bridge and let it make money (or at least lose less).
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 06, 2013, 08:45:47 AM
Quote from: Steve on August 05, 2013, 09:32:55 PMI-84 - Probably the best free road for a tolling candidate.
Wrong, the Strubridge toll plaza with the Pike (I-90) is only 7 miles from the border and I have indeed seen eastbound 84 traffic grdilock extend as far back as the CT state line at times.
Presumably all new tolls would be open road. I can't see them erecting a toll plaza with all that expense and paying tolltakers. (This goes to Froggie's argument about US 7 - just put it Right At The Border Line.)
QuoteQuote from: Steve on August 05, 2013, 09:32:55 PMI-91 - I don't see any road as high-volume enough between 91 and 3 to warrant consideration.
Typo. alert: I believe you meant to say 91 and 5.
No typo. Between I-91 and US 3, there are no roads I see as candidates for tolling.
QuotePresumably all new tolls would be open road. I can't see them erecting a toll plaza with all that expense and paying tolltakers. (This goes to Froggie's argument about US 7 - just put it Right At The Border Line.)
I had already presumed that it would be ORT. Going back to US 7, you can't...not with a house and a motel right at the border.
If Vermont agrees to split the money, you could have two electronic toll booths on US 7 at clearings/wide spots on either side of the state line, and you are only charged if you go through both. A spot just south of VT 346 looks perfect, and perhaps they could fit something at the Steinerfilm driveway in Massachusetts. The only way around is Hill Road AKA Dirt Motherfucking Road.
Quote from: froggie on August 07, 2013, 07:51:25 AM
QuotePresumably all new tolls would be open road. I can't see them erecting a toll plaza with all that expense and paying tolltakers. (This goes to Froggie's argument about US 7 - just put it Right At The Border Line.)
I had already presumed that it would be ORT. Going back to US 7, you can't...not with a house and a motel right at the border.
Quote from: NE2 on August 07, 2013, 08:21:44 AM
If Vermont agrees to split the money, you could have two electronic toll booths on US 7 at clearings/wide spots on either side of the state line, and you are only charged if you go through both. A spot just south of VT 346 looks perfect, and perhaps they could fit something at the Steinerfilm driveway in Massachusetts. The only way around is Hill Road AKA Dirt Motherfucking Road.
Better idea: allow residents of Williamstown and Pownal to purchase EZ-Passes that get you through said potential US 7 toll for free. Or at least for a discount, and let those in the
immediate area get through for free, otherwise you'd frustrate the many residents in the area.
Quote from: NE2 on August 07, 2013, 08:21:44 AM
If Vermont agrees to split the money, you could have two electronic toll booths on US 7 at clearings/wide spots on either side of the state line, and you are only charged if you go through both. A spot just south of VT 346 looks perfect, and perhaps they could fit something at the Steinerfilm driveway in Massachusetts. The only way around is Hill Road AKA Dirt Motherfucking Road.
how motherfucking is the dirt? given that a typical rural resident of western MA/southern VT is likely to own a pickup truck, they may very well just take Hill Road.
Personally, I don't know why they'd even bother with tolling US 7 there. Most of the traffic is local ("through/tourist traffic" to/from southwestern Vermont generally comes up NY 7 from the Albany area). And volumes are not all that high...just over 7,000 AADT now, of which 1,600 gets off the road at VT 346.
Quote from: froggie on August 07, 2013, 01:42:50 PM
Personally, I don't know why they'd even bother with tolling US 7 there. Most of the traffic is local ("through/tourist traffic" to/from southwestern Vermont generally comes up NY 7 from the Albany area). And volumes are not all that high...just over 7,000 AADT now, of which 1,600 gets off the road at VT 346.
Yeah, have to agree with you. Why bother? Then again this IS Massachusetts and they love to grab people's money...
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 07, 2013, 12:38:00 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 07, 2013, 08:21:44 AM
If Vermont agrees to split the money, you could have two electronic toll booths on US 7 at clearings/wide spots on either side of the state line, and you are only charged if you go through both. A spot just south of VT 346 looks perfect, and perhaps they could fit something at the Steinerfilm driveway in Massachusetts. The only way around is Hill Road AKA Dirt Motherfucking Road.
how motherfucking is the dirt? given that a typical rural resident of western MA/southern VT is likely to own a pickup truck, they may very well just take Hill Road.
Yeah.
I have a feeling that ORT systems on these low-traffic roads in rural VT/WMass would be frequently under repair from the effects of a lot of Bud Light and a little libertarianism.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 07, 2013, 09:18:37 PM
I have a feeling that ORT systems on these low-traffic roads in rural VT/WMass would be frequently under repair from the effects of a lot of Bud Light and a little libertarianism.
I don't think "libertarianism" can be neatly equated to "vandalism".
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 07, 2013, 09:41:35 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 07, 2013, 09:18:37 PM
I have a feeling that ORT systems on these low-traffic roads in rural VT/WMass would be frequently under repair from the effects of a lot of Bud Light and a little libertarianism.
I don't think "libertarianism" can be neatly equated to "vandalism".
You haven't had enough Bud Light, then.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 07, 2013, 09:53:56 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 07, 2013, 09:41:35 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 07, 2013, 09:18:37 PM
I have a feeling that ORT systems on these low-traffic roads in rural VT/WMass would be frequently under repair from the effects of a lot of Bud Light and a little libertarianism.
I don't think "libertarianism" can be neatly equated to "vandalism".
You haven't had enough Bud Light, then.
That's like the famous last words of far too many, "Hold my beer."
Quote from: Steve on August 07, 2013, 12:19:47 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 06, 2013, 08:45:47 AM
Quote from: Steve on August 05, 2013, 09:32:55 PMI-84 - Probably the best free road for a tolling candidate.
Wrong, the Strubridge toll plaza with the Pike (I-90) is only 7 miles from the border and I have indeed seen eastbound 84 traffic grdilock extend as far back as the CT state line at times.
Presumably all new tolls would be open road. I can't see them erecting a toll plaza with all that expense and paying tolltakers.
As others have stated similar & likely assumptions (regarding ORT implementation), that still doesn't change that fact that the
majority of traffic along 7-mile stretch of I-84 is through-traffic to/from the Pike (I-90) and
are already paying a toll of sorts.
Given the fact that the existing toll plaza can cause backups as far as the CT border at times and assuming that most of the existing Pike toll plazas won't be converted to ORTs anytime soon (to reduce/prevent such); that could cause issues w/a supplemental ORT located only a few miles away. ORTs are designed for moving traffic not stationary traffic; a stationary vehicle in the vicinity of the ORT gantry could run the risk of being tolled/charged
more than once. An unsuspecting motorist may not be aware of such until they receive their bill in the mail or receive their EZPass statment sometime later. It's opening up a Pandora's box of hassles if you ask me.
Additionally, the Pike is now run by MassDOT so the tolls are no longer necessarily going to a separate agency (Massachusetts Turnpike Authority).
As far as tolling non-highways near the borders is concerned; tolling such roads died off circa late 19th century/early 20th century; I don't see such happening any time soon.
IMHO, the best solution would be a mixture of tolls and additional (but not exhorbitant) gas tax revenue.
Note: this is assuming that
all-related wasteful spending is indeed eliminated (this should be Priority One IMHO) but addtional revenue (for actual work & maintenace) is still needed.
1. As mentioned earlier place one-way ORTs at I-93 North before Exit 20 (I-90), I-93 South before Exit 26 (MA 3 North & MA 28), convert the Allston toll plaza along I-90 into a one-way ORT eastbound and covert all the existing tolls plazas at the river/harbor crossings into ORTs. Charge a uniform toll of $2.50-$3 if the Pike tolls along I-90 west of I-95 remain or a toll of $4-$5 if the Pike tolls along I-90 west of I-95 are removed.
2. Similar to what was practiced in Bay State during the early-80s, make the gas tax rate percentage-based rather than a flat-rate so that when the price skyrockets, additional revenue can accrue; but impose a minimum flat rate that automatically kicks in should prices plummet (like it did during the mid-80s).
3. Allow an additional small flat gas tax to be levied in counties that have a sizable mass-transit presence/network; this reduces the fleecing of those in western Massachusetts susidizing mass transit systems in the eastern & central part of the state that they're never going to use.
When are people encountering traffic backing up from the Sturbridge toll to the state line? I go through there about 20 times a year and can't remember anything close to that happening since Thanksgivings before the age of electronic tolling.
I've personally seen I-84 East back up during the latter part (return time) of some 3-day holiday weekends (Sunday or Monday evenings depending on which 3-day weekend it is). Sometimes, the backups only extend as far as Exit 2; other times into the CT state line. FYI, I'm usually in the Bay State during most holiday weekends so I've seen the above first-hand. Thankfully, I'm heading in the opposite direction when this has happened.
With regards to Fast Lane/EZPass: the toll plaza itself has 12 lanes total with at the most 7 lanes dedicated/open in one direction. 6 of those lanes (3 for each direction can accept EZPass with 1 of those 3 lanes in each direction accepting both cash & EZPass tranactions). Given the traffic volumes and the masses that do not have EZPass at that time, traffic can still back up. Pre-Fast Lane, eastbound 84 traffic backups probably extended a few miles into CT; this was especially true prior to tolls being waived during the holidays (the toll-takers would just wave people through).
Toll plaza & EZPass aside I-90 Eastbound traffic from I-84 to Exit 10 (I-290/395/MA 12) during said-times can be at a stand-still as well (that stretch of the Pike is a bottleneck). That can also contribute to the backups along eastbound I-84 as well as much traffic spilling onto nearby US 20.
What about tolling I-95 from MA/RI stateline up to Attleboro and if they do it would have dumped Boston/Providence traffic onto US-1 and cause delays on the RI side of the stateline
Apparently the date for restoration of tolls west of exit 6 on the pike has been set as October 15.
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/western-turnpike-tolls-public-hearings-set/
I'm shocked, shocked to learn that Massachusetts is a high-tax state.
Quote from: kkt on August 13, 2013, 10:09:05 AM
I'm shocked, shocked to learn that Massachusetts is a high-tax state.
Massachusetts sales tax: 6.25% + .75% local tax almost everywhere for a total of 7%.
On my trip around the country (combines state and local)
Chicago: 9% tax.
Flagstaff and Sedona, AZ: Slightly over 10%.
Sales tax isn't everything. Look also at the state income tax, property tax, and random fees.
Quote from: kkt on August 13, 2013, 11:34:20 AM
Sales tax isn't everything. Look also at the state income tax, property tax, and random fees.
Don't forget excise taxes on motor vehicles.
Quote from: kkt on August 13, 2013, 11:34:20 AM
Sales tax isn't everything. Look also at the state income tax, property tax, and random fees.
No, its not everything, but for those of us that haven't recently purchased a car and don't own a home (an abnormally high portion of the state), it matters significantly more than what you listed. MA having no sales tax on essentials (food, clothes) makes a significant difference when compared to lower-tax states that do tax items like food.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 13, 2013, 01:43:20 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 13, 2013, 11:34:20 AM
Sales tax isn't everything. Look also at the state income tax, property tax, and random fees.
No, its not everything, but for those of us that haven't recently purchased a car and don't own a home (an abnormally high portion of the state), it matters significantly more than what you listed. MA having no sales tax on essentials (food, clothes) makes a significant difference when compared to lower-tax states that do tax items like food.
Income tax varies highly between states. http://www.tax-brackets.org/massachusettstaxtable (http://www.tax-brackets.org/massachusettstaxtable) says Massachusetts has 5.3% income tax on all income, so a first estimate for total tax burden would be 7% + 5.3% = 12.3%. Compare the several states that have no personal income tax.
It's a good gesture to low-income people to exempt food and maybe clothes, but even in the lower incomes those are a pretty small part of the total budget.
Property tax is still relevant even if you're renting. The property owner passes it on to the tenants.
Being a high tax state isn't necessarily bad, if you're getting government services that work, reasonable tuition at state colleges, etc. As an example of not having government services that work, take the public schools in Washington. The state only pays the local districts for half-day kindergarten, but full-day is educationally much better, so some local school districts require kids to have full-day and require the parents to make up $3100 a year that the state doesn't pay. People who's income is low enough to qualify for free lunch are exempt, but being able to pay about $630 for a year's school lunches doesn't necessarily mean it's easy to come up with $3100. Similarly, in high schools 6 periods a day are free, some school districts allow students to take a 7th period but charge for it.
Quote from: 1 on August 13, 2013, 11:17:40 AM
Quote from: kkt on August 13, 2013, 10:09:05 AM
I'm shocked, shocked to learn that Massachusetts is a high-tax state.
Massachusetts sales tax: 6.25% + .75% local tax almost everywhere for a total of 7%.
On my trip around the country (combines state and local)
Chicago: 9% tax.
Flagstaff and Sedona, AZ: Slightly over 10%.
While NJ residents tend to be heavily taxed (which I'm not disagreeing with), as this points out, there's much more to taxes than what is printed.
When NJ went from a 6% to 7% Sales Tax, it was noted that 7% is one of the highest state sales taxes in the nation...which is true. Except, the uninformed and don't really give a damn newspaper reporters fail to understand that other states have county and city sales taxes as well, which may push those areas above 7%.
Same thing with property taxes - we definitely have high property taxes. But, in most areas, they include things like snow plowing and trash/recycling pickup. Many areas of the country with lower taxes have to pay for that stuff themselves. So they may have lower taxes, but they may pay a lot in contracting separately with a trash company.
Quote from: kkt on August 13, 2013, 02:20:54 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 13, 2013, 01:43:20 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 13, 2013, 11:34:20 AM
Sales tax isn't everything. Look also at the state income tax, property tax, and random fees.
No, its not everything, but for those of us that haven't recently purchased a car and don't own a home (an abnormally high portion of the state), it matters significantly more than what you listed. MA having no sales tax on essentials (food, clothes) makes a significant difference when compared to lower-tax states that do tax items like food.
Income tax varies highly between states. http://www.tax-brackets.org/massachusettstaxtable (http://www.tax-brackets.org/massachusettstaxtable) says Massachusetts has 5.3% income tax on all income, so a first estimate for total tax burden would be 7% + 5.3% = 12.3%. Compare the several states that have no personal income tax.
Yes, note how I didn't mention income tax in my reply. That's because I'm not contesting that we have a significant income tax. I notice that every paycheck.
QuoteIt's a good gesture to low-income people to exempt food and maybe clothes, but even in the lower incomes those are a pretty small part of the total budget.
As someone in the lowest of income brackets, no, food is actually a very significant portion of our total budget. Think about it - $100 a week for groceries at 6.25% tax means you're paying $325 in taxes on food annually. That extra $325 helps out a lot! I'll take any break I can get.
QuoteProperty tax is still relevant even if you're renting. The property owner passes it on to the tenants.
Then why is rent surprisingly cheap in this state outside of Boston proper? My rent is SIGNIFICANTLY less here than it was in Virginia, for a comparable place.
QuoteBeing a high tax state isn't necessarily bad, if you're getting government services that work
Which we are, IMO.
The "new" tolls will be $1.75 for 53 miles. Meh. The MassPike is still a cheap toll road.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 13, 2013, 05:07:09 PMQuoteProperty tax is still relevant even if you're renting. The property owner passes it on to the tenants.
Then why is rent surprisingly cheap in this state outside of Boston proper? My rent is SIGNIFICANTLY less here than it was in Virginia, for a comparable place.
What part of Virginia were you living at? If it was in the Metro DC area, that's not too much of surprise. OTOH, average rents inside of 495 (talking MA again), outside of slums, is still higher than average rents in most* metro areas like the Greater Philadelphia/Delware Valley area.
*We won't even bring metro NYC, metro Seattle and the major CA cities into the picture because their rates are likely off the charts.
The rent (still a 3-digit monthly figure) for my one-bedroom in Delaware County (PA) would likely be one-and-a-half times higher for a similar apartment in a similar neighborhood inside 495.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 13, 2013, 05:07:09 PMQuoteBeing a high tax state isn't necessarily bad, if you're getting government services that actually work
FTFY
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 13, 2013, 05:07:09 PM
Which we are, IMO.
That could be open for debate. If waste & fraud (think EBT/MassHealth card abuse) were eliminated, many of these increases would likely not be needed or wouldn't be as severe.
Hampton Roads.
Admittedly the military plays a huge role in inflating rent down there, but I went from $1250 there to $850 here for a comparable place.
And yes I live inside 495.
The waste and fraud you mention are problems in ANY state though - hardly limited to Massachusetts.
At the risk of derailing this thread even further, my cost of living in exurban MA is significantly lower than it was in suburban VA, and there are significantly more government-funded services available to me.
Update on the MassPike tolls:
http://www.wcvb.com/news/tolls-coming-back-to-west-newton-under-new-tollig-system/26548872#!0JJZe
Looks like that would be of benefit for those cutting from I-84 to I-290, as the toll would be reduced from 50 to 40 cents. The Hartford-Providence northern option (to MA 146) would reduce from 65 to 40 cents, and the Cape/Patriots crowd (I-495) would reduce from 1.10 to 80 cents.
If the above is indeed implemented/constructed; it would allow for more interchanges to be constructed west of Weston (the toll-ticket corridor) because the abolishment of the toll-ticket system would mean less space will be required to build a new interchange (i.e. no more twin-trumpets).
I couldn't find the full details of the plan either on the MassDOT web site or elsewhere. Does anyone have a link to it?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 19, 2014, 11:43:18 AM
I couldn't find the full details of the plan either on the MassDOT web site or elsewhere. Does anyone have a link to it?
If you have an online subscription to The Boston Globe:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/06/18/turnpike-tolls-resume-newton-while-charges-will-reduced-springfield-worcester/QQEy4cWpTksU7K6cs11gDK/story.html?p1=Article_InThisSection_Top
Otherwise, a summary:
--Switchover in the summer of 2016 to AET on the MassPike.
--Each tolling gantry a 2-axle vehicle passes = a charge of 40 cents.
--Gantries will be placed so that local trips in the Worcester (exits 10, 10A and 11) and Springfield (4,5 and 6) areas will be toll-free.
--The eastbound entrance at interchange 17 (Newton Corner) will once again charge a toll.
--In many cases tolls under AET will be cheaper than existing interchange-to-interchange tolls.
--Many drivers are still upset about their Turnpike tolls going to pay for other roads.
--Therefore, if the AET rollout is successful, tolling of other roads may be considered.
Quote from: SidS1045 on June 19, 2014, 03:18:56 PM
--Switchover in the summer of 2016 to AET on the MassPike.
That would be one way to address my wish that they add more EZPass lanes to the 128-to-WB Pike toll plaza.
All too often when coming home from working in Boston, I'll bag up my EZPass because the lines to go through the EZPass lane are slow while there's no waiting to just get a paper ticket.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 19, 2014, 03:31:49 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on June 19, 2014, 03:18:56 PM
--Switchover in the summer of 2016 to AET on the MassPike.
That would be one way to address my wish that they add more EZPass lanes to the 128-to-WB Pike toll plaza.
All too often when coming home from working in Boston, I'll bag up my EZPass because the lines to go through the EZPass lane are slow while there's no waiting to just get a paper ticket.
Wouldn't your EZ-Pass work in all lanes? I can use a lane with an attendant here in Illinois with my I-Pass at any toll plaza in the system, and it is set up with readers for the I-Pass.
Quote from: SidS1045 on June 19, 2014, 03:18:56 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 19, 2014, 11:43:18 AM
I couldn't find the full details of the plan either on the MassDOT web site or elsewhere. Does anyone have a link to it?
If you have an online subscription to The Boston Globe:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/06/18/turnpike-tolls-resume-newton-while-charges-will-reduced-springfield-worcester/QQEy4cWpTksU7K6cs11gDK/story.html?p1=Article_InThisSection_Top
Otherwise, a summary:
--Switchover in the summer of 2016 to AET on the MassPike.
--Each tolling gantry a 2-axle vehicle passes = a charge of 40 cents.
--Gantries will be placed so that local trips in the Worcester (exits 10, 10A and 11) and Springfield (4,5 and 6) areas will be toll-free.
--The eastbound entrance at interchange 17 (Newton Corner) will once again charge a toll.
--In many cases tolls under AET will be cheaper than existing interchange-to-interchange tolls.
--Many drivers are still upset about their Turnpike tolls going to pay for other roads.
--Therefore, if the AET rollout is successful, tolling of other roads may be considered.
Yes, I read the article, but there is information missing, such as what exactly the toll divisions are. In other words, I'd like to know where the gantries are, so I can understand if it's a more equitable system per mile then what exists now.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 19, 2014, 03:31:49 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on June 19, 2014, 03:18:56 PM
--Switchover in the summer of 2016 to AET on the MassPike.
That would be one way to address my wish that they add more EZPass lanes to the 128-to-WB Pike toll plaza.
All too often when coming home from working in Boston, I'll bag up my EZPass because the lines to go through the EZPass lane are slow while there's no waiting to just get a paper ticket.
That is one of the only places I know where EZ-Pass is the slower option.
Quote from: Brandon on June 19, 2014, 03:47:13 PM
Wouldn't your EZ-Pass work in all lanes? I can use a lane with an attendant here in Illinois with my I-Pass at any toll plaza in the system, and it is set up with readers for the I-Pass.
You'd think that MassPike would have done this...but that's not the case.
Actually, considering how congested that toll plaza gets at the height of the evening commute, I could easily imagine a bureaucrat deciding that it would be just too easy for a non-EZpass vehicle to slip through the toll both without getting a ticket, and then fussing over the toll when trying to exit without that ticket.
At least this way, it's simple: everyone who goes through a manual lane must take a ticket.
Besides, this way, the (surprisingly few) people bright enough to take down their transponders get to bypass part of the queue, if the queue is bad.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 19, 2014, 03:50:55 PM
I'd like to know where the gantries are, so I can understand if it's a more equitable system per mile then what exists now.
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/assets_c/2013/08/piketollreplace1a-110907.html
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 19, 2014, 08:54:10 AM
If the above is indeed implemented/constructed; it would allow for more interchanges to be constructed west of Weston (the toll-ticket corridor) because the abolishment of the toll-ticket system would mean less space will be required to build a new interchange (i.e. no more twin-trumpets).
I would put the new interchanges at MA 8 and MA 23.
Quote from: 1 on June 19, 2014, 10:35:25 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 19, 2014, 08:54:10 AM
If the above is indeed implemented/constructed; it would allow for more interchanges to be constructed west of Weston (the toll-ticket corridor) because the abolishment of the toll-ticket system would mean less space will be required to build a new interchange (i.e. no more twin-trumpets).
I would put the new interchanges at MA 8 and MA 23.
I agree with 8, but I don't know about 23. Yes, it's the only route for miles, but where is it going? Exit 3 serves Westfield, and the MA 8 interchange would serve that corridor. The other place I'd like to see one is at US 7.
In case any of you reading/seeing the recent news reports about the pending AET rollout on the Mass. Pike are wondering why the West Newton plaza was the first one singled out for elimination and demolition of the plaza shortly thereafter, here's the backstory behind the decision.
About six months after assuming the chairmanship of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, Jim Kerasiotes and his entourage were entering the Pike eastbound at West Newton about 3 am. Upon pulling up to the plaza, they found the toll taker fast asleep. Wintin a week, it was announced ** that tolls would no longer be collected at West Newton, and that the plaza would be removed.
**although the decision to remove the tolls was made by the Turnpike Authority, per long standing practice in Massachusetts government, such decisions are publically announced by the Governor's office. MassDOT continues the practice to this day for major projects or policy changes.
Disclaimer - I learned of this story through several of my contacts within the Turnpike Authority and MassHighway, as well as from the toll taker on duty that night himself - who was a former high school classmate.
Quote from: roadman on June 20, 2014, 12:43:27 PM
In case any of you reading/seeing the recent news reports about the pending AET rollout on the Mass. Pike are wondering why the West Newton plaza was the first one singled out for elimination and demolition of the plaza shortly thereafter, here's the backstory behind the decision.
About six months after assuming the chairmanship of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, Jim Kerasiotes and his entourage were entering the Pike eastbound at West Newton about 3 am. Upon pulling up to the plaza, they found the toll taker fast asleep. Wintin a week, it was announced ** that tolls would no longer be collected at West Newton, and that the plaza would be removed.
**although the decision to remove the tolls was made by the Turnpike Authority, per long standing practice in Massachusetts government, such decisions are publically announced by the Governor's office. MassDOT continues the practice to this day for major projects or policy changes.
Disclaimer - I learned of this story through several of my contacts within the Turnpike Authority and MassHighway, as well as from the toll taker on duty that night himself - who was a former high school classmate.
Disclaimer unnecessary, I've heard the same story.
Quote from: Alps on June 20, 2014, 08:03:03 PM
Disclaimer unnecessary, I've heard the same story.
As have I.