Submitted by bostexa t3_112b2er in massachusetts
I know some tunnels and bridges have tolls, but why is the pike the only toll road?
Comments
PsychologicalAgent64 t1_j8j3034 wrote
You asking for more?
masspromo t1_j8z2amt wrote
Very easy to make a road a toll road now with electronic tolling
PsychologicalAgent64 t1_j8z2k0h wrote
Ok but why, we are already over taxed. I'm team citizens. Not team government theft.
bostexa OP t1_j8jb6jb wrote
At the moment the burden is mostly on Metro West, Central and Western Mass residents. We can either add tolls to other roads around Boston and use the money to fix our infrastructure and improve public transit, or get rid of the masspike toll
PsychologicalAgent64 t1_j8jcni3 wrote
Yeah, we have weed revenue, tax revenue, millionaires tax revenue lottery revenue and now sports gambling revenue. Me, personally, am team no more toll roads.
[deleted] t1_j8jd7uh wrote
[deleted]
AnyRound5042 t1_j8jlq28 wrote
I'm 100% more tolls guy. Let the drivers pay for their own wear and tear. You want to save money on tolls then don't drive on the highways. If there's no tolls then I shouldn't have to pay the fare for the T
[deleted] t1_j8juk5x wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j8m1kza wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j8jm5j1 wrote
[deleted]
Infamous-Ride4270 t1_j8k2ujv wrote
It’s actually in line with Maryland, Virginia, Florida, and the few other places that have pricing based traffic. Pricing mechanisms used to be a “conservative” value - not sure where the politics flipped
Victor_Korchnoi t1_j8k4rse wrote
I agree it does seem silly to have a toll on one highway but not the others. Though to be fair, there is a toll on the Tobin and the harbor tunnels as well. So it’s not just Metro West, Central Mass, and Western Mass paying tolls.
I don’t hate the idea of tolls. Road maintenance is incredibly expensive. Far less than half of road maintenance is covered by the current gas tax. And I’d much rather the difference come from road users than from the general fund.
Personally, I think I’d rather see a significantly higher gas tax than tolls because it is easier to collect and doesn’t have any privacy issues. But people piss & moan when the idea of the gas tax being raised to cover maintenance is brought up. So I guess, let’s keep the status quo.
bobmcrobber t1_j8l473b wrote
I honestly don't mind paying tolls. I live in Bellingham, and it costs about $2 one way to use I-90 from 495 to downtown Boston. There's always Route 9 or I-95/93 as toll free routes for me
BovaDesnuts t1_j8n10qk wrote
This is not a mistake. 2/3rds of people in the state live in the Boston metro and would rather kill everyone in WMA than pay taxes. Daniel Shays was right.
bostexa OP t1_j8iz6n3 wrote
Did some search and someone already proposed tolls on other roads
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/tolls-on-i-93-route-128-and-route-3/14313/
PabloX68 t1_j8j3rch wrote
Good lesson in how governments often work (with the MA state government being a prime example).
The tolls were added to the Pike because they were required to fund the construction. Once the bonds were paid off, the tolls were supposed to be removed and of course, that never happened. Instead, the Turnpike Authority made a good effort to preserve their own existence by maintaining the pike to a level far beyond the other highways in the state. They also wasted a ton of money by hiring toll takers (typically friends and family of politicians or turnpike authority execs) for ridiculous salaries to do mindless jobs.
Then, of course, the Big Dig came and tolls were used to help fund that.
Now this politician wants to "start a conversation" (i.e. waste legislature time) to apply this wrong to the rest of the state. Great.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j8j58z3 wrote
Probably worth also noting that in a few decades, I think there will be few non toll roads for highways.
Gas tax revenue is disappearing. We know that with 100% certainty. The cost of that has to be replaced somewhere
PabloX68 t1_j8j5ser wrote
Yes, if EV ownership increases significantly, tax revenue for road maintenance will need to be rethought somehow and maybe that means tolls. However, that's not going to help with local roads unless the toll taking technology changes substantially. In other words, fuel taxes affect people regardless of whether they use local roads or highways.
bostexa OP t1_j8j83qz wrote
San Diego was evaluating a per-mile tax for EVs (maybe all cars and get rid of the gas tax)
PabloX68 t1_j8j8fum wrote
I predict there will be some 4th Amendment concerns out of any of these schemes.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j8j9b3v wrote
Depends really how it's implemented. But the writing is on the wall. In 50 years, either other taxes like income get increased to supplement car travel or there's going to be tolls/mileage taxes on highways and bridges.
I'd be OK with the former as long as we made public transportation 100% free.
Easy-Progress8252 t1_j8l5nyf wrote
That’s the thing, we need reliable public transport like most of Europe and Asia. More than happy to leave the car at home for everything except vacations and grocery trips.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_j8jbswz wrote
There is over 100 years of precedent giving the government incredible powers to regulate vehicular traffic, for reasons ranging from public safety to pollution. Zero chance of a 4th amendment challenge to any toll or tax.
PabloX68 t1_j8jlx37 wrote
Zero? Absolute statements when it comes to anything to do with the law are nearly always wrong.
If we end up with a toll system that tracks where a vehicle goes (which would be necessary for local road tolls), that'll have 4A implications. If we put trackers in cars for the same reason, that'll have 4A implications.
I note those examples because simple odometer readings as a method would also be challenged because much of that usage could be out of state.
gusterfell t1_j8jduma wrote
That depends. If it's based on odometer readings, then you're right. If it's based on making more/most roads into toll roads, then you've got a 4th Amendment case. There's no precedent for allowing the government to monitor where and when everyone is driving.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_j8je8cz wrote
Given that driving has repeatedly been held to be a privilege and not a right, I am not sure I would put much stock in that argument. Courts would almost surely hold that local and state governments have a legitimate interest in monitoring and tolling vehicles.
​
An odometer reading would be the most fair, indisputable, and easily implemented change though. That would have a nice effect of encouraging less sprawl.
​
Throw in a weight tax and I'd be happy.
AnyRound5042 t1_j8jl9w4 wrote
Weight tax all fucking day let's go
PabloX68 t1_j8jm3y0 wrote
Odometer readings would be problematic because a lot of that mileage could be out of state, but you're quite right on local tolls.
lorcan-mt t1_j8jhhud wrote
Then flip it and use odometer readings to qualify for a vehicle tax credit.
AnyRound5042 t1_j8jlbah wrote
Can you drive less than zero miles?
[deleted] t1_j8kqezn wrote
[deleted]
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j8kqubg wrote
I didn't say EVs once. I said that the gas tax is going to dwindle down within a few decades.
wkomorow t1_j8jdoe4 wrote
From 1996-2013, those of us in the Eastern (edit Western) part of the state paid no tolls between what was exit 1 (West Stockbridge) and exit 6 (Chicopee). Good times.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8jhb2d wrote
The issue is that federal funding for maintenance just doesn’t keep pace. The tolls pay for that upkeep. And the enabling legislation that created MassDOT when the Turnpike Authority was done away with does not allow monies collected as tolls to be spent on anything other than the highways on which they were collected. With fewer federal dollars for roadways and many more drivers in the 58 years since the Pike was built, changing weather conditions, and new important federal regulations to manage stormwater (if you like having clean drinking water this is vital), it has not gotten cheaper to maintain the Pike or any other roadway. And the funds collected must go straight into maintain that roadway. I’m struggling to see why it bothers people. And if it does, are people willing to pay more federal and state taxes to maintain the worlds they use to get to work or move products?
WinsingtonIII t1_j8n2ap5 wrote
Right. Roads cost money. Is it really that crazy that funding their maintenance comes partially from charging a toll for people using those roads?
The money would just have to come from somewhere else if you got rid of the tolls, I don't see why people get so bent out of shape about it. If they'd prefer other forms of taxation play for the portion of road maintenance paid for by tolls, then fine, but I get the sense some of the people who complain about this stuff just want the government to magically pay for things without having the revenue to do so. State governments can't run a deficit the way the Feds can, so that's not an option.
PabloX68 t1_j8jle7r wrote
That all may be the case, but it's beside the point because it all happened after the situation I laid out.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8jnvmm wrote
So changing realities in the world are besides the point because people made a decision 60 years ago? That doesn’t even make sense. Please explain to me how a decision 60 years ago make todays conditions besides the point. When you are complaining about todays conditions. Just saying it’s besides the point doesn’t make it so.
The bonds weren’t even paid off until 2017, AFTER MassDOT was created. That’s pretty damn current and relevant. 6 years of extra tolls for maintenance and improvements… I’d say that just like the precipitation data that’s over 60 years old being irrelevant to today, the reasons for the tolls having been started is what’s actually irrelevant, not the needs of maintaining it today.
And while you are explaining to me why I’m wrong and todays conditions are irrelevant, can you propose a better way to fund the maintenance? If all you are doing is just being mad about a 60 year old decision changing but you don’t have a better solution, then why are you complaining? You don’t have a preferred alternative. But if you do have a better alternative, please share it so it can be implemented
PabloX68 t1_j8ju44z wrote
And btw, submitting a bill "to start a conversation" is shitty. The legislature has enough to do without wasting time on that bs tactic. Lobby for your idea and get others on board, then submit a bill.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8jxjyn wrote
That’s not how bills work. They get discussed, debated, have modifications made, are analyzed in committee, revised again, and then they get voted on. How do you think you get people on board without having the specifics of the law written down?
PabloX68 t1_j8k2tk3 wrote
I know how bills work. Some are just grandstanding especially when the person sponsoring the bill says just that. Plenty of ridiculous bills are submitted at the state and federal level that the sponsors realize have no chance. They do it for publicity.
An actual bill doesn't need to be submitted to get people onboard with the idea. They're called cosponsors.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k3fdk wrote
So which is this? Just for publicity and pointless or an actual problem where they want to make us pay tolls on more roads? Pick one. You are talking out both sides of your mouth. It’s either a problem or it’s not. It’s either a real stupid attempt or it’s fake and for publicity.
And you STILL haven’t given one single idea on how to fund the roadway maintenance better. Come on. Stop moving the goalposts and answer the one and only question asked of you.
What’s your solution?
PabloX68 t1_j8k4kxq wrote
The sponsor of the bill literally said it's to "start a conversation".
It's not incumbent on me to come up with a solution, though I gave you some in another post. As a taxpayer, it's incumbent on me to point out the state already wastes a shitload of money and produces a shitty product. Don't expect anyone to be onboard after looking at those numbers.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k4q8u wrote
That’s not true at all. It is not your job to point out that things are shitty and money was wasted when you don’t understand how much things cost and how to fund it. It means that you don’t understand any of the things you’re critiquing.
What is your solution? How are you going to fund the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of maintenance, or hundreds of billions of dollars worth of reconstruction?
PabloX68 t1_j8k4zyt wrote
I understand plenty and you're avoiding the comparisons I've made.
Why is per mile spending so damn high in MA already? Answer that in a cogent way and we can talk. Have you actually driven through NH? They rank mid pack out of all the states and their road quality is far better.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k59tn wrote
Comparisons from different data sets are not relevant here. do me a favor, though, if you think they are, feel free to actually show me the numbers. Like I asked!
What is your solution? How are you going to fund the reconstruction or maintenance of many many many more miles of roadway in Massachusetts than in New Hampshire?
PabloX68 t1_j8k5mmm wrote
Here's another example.
https://reason.org/policy-study/26th-annual-highway-report/massachusetts/
And I said PER MILE road spending. Now you're pointing out that MA has "many many more". No shit.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k61o1 wrote
Did you read my comment? Many more people. So many more drivers and much more wear & tear. Per mile is not the relevant statistic here. If you actually did this for a living you would know. I do.
PabloX68 t1_j8k8psq wrote
You engineer roads for a living? Do tell.
Sorry but the traffic levels don't change the instant you cross the border. Bring your Prius up to 80mph and drive that stretch I pointed to and tell me the MA part isn't worse.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8ka5xd wrote
Lmao. I don’t drive a Prius, but you are showing your ass with that comment and your sources. Move to NH if you like it so much. It’s a much better place for libertarians who are so biased against the government that they can’t evaluate evidence appropriately.
And actually, I do plenty of work around roadways design, evaluation, permitting, maintenance, upgrades etc. You don’t have to engineer roads to know how the are funded and constructed. In fact, an engineer knows nothing about funding mechanisms. I do that exact work for a living. Yup. Did you think I would prove it and doxx myself? Lol
You are a walking Dunning Kruger effect.
I hope you get a chance to move to a place where you will be happier. I can’t waste any more time educating you when you don’t want to learn anything. Bye!
[deleted] t1_j8kay3c wrote
[removed]
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8kb554 wrote
Lol, sure thing. Bye!!
PabloX68 t1_j8kcqck wrote
If you can look at roads in MA and the money we spend on them and think it's all good, you've clearly been brainwashed.
Realize you doing a shitty job costs normal people money and puts them in danger. Sleep well.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8kdbhr wrote
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k6dx1 wrote
Oh! Another biased source! Reason.org is a libertarian think tank. That is not a reputable source. At all.
PabloX68 t1_j8k88wy wrote
I know exactly who they are. That doesn't mean their numbers are wrong here. How about you find a source that says MA isn't among the least efficient, highest spenders here?
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k9eo5 wrote
That’s exactly what it means. Their analysis is biased.
PabloX68 t1_j8kct4e wrote
Link to another source that counters it. How hard is that?
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8kdemk wrote
Nope. You didn’t do your job first, I’m not obligated to engage with somebody who is calling me brainwashed. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😫 Bye!
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k5kpx wrote
Oh, and the flaw in your assumption is that spending per mile should be the same in states with VASTLY different populations, therefore roadway users, therefore vastly more wear & tear, and therefore more repair and maintenance costs
So, no. You don’t understand plenty.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_Effect_01.svg
PabloX68 t1_j8ka2ra wrote
There are plenty of other examples of more comparable states in those links. CT and RI both have similar population densities and similar weather yet spend about 1/3 less.
I never assumed it SHOULD be the same nor did I say that, speaking of Dunning Kruger.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8kam3z wrote
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! Stockholm syndrome and dunning Kruger? Oh my god.. you have no idea what you are linking to. You think I identify with my kidnappers? Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!
And that source is not credible no matter how many times you pretend it is.
Bye!
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k4toh wrote
And what numbers are these by the way? Where exactly is their money being wasted? Point to a specific project and how it could’ve been done equally as well for cheaper.
PabloX68 t1_j8k5766 wrote
I already gave you a link and I already gave you an example of a shitty result (Rt 3).
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k5wd5 wrote
No, you gave me an attorneys business website as a legitimate source for state spending. That’s not a reliable source.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8jp5ol wrote
You are also aware that the very reason MassDOT was created and created with that restriction on spending was because of the Big Dig, right? How is it besides the point that the laws have been changed after the Big Dig to prevent it from happening again? Today’s conditions were created as a direct result of prior mistakes. How is it besides the point that 20 years later we still need to maintain the highway even though we got rid of the ways that the state was allowed to take that toll money and pay for other projects? It’s the entire point. The state has done a bunch of things to reverse those bad decisions and we still need to pay for the mass pike. Give me a better way to pay for it and I’ll happily share it with the regional planners that work for the state that I know and work with myself.
PabloX68 t1_j8jtrzd wrote
No, the point was that the tolls on the MA Pike were supposed to be removed once the bonds for BUILDING THE MASS PIKE were paid. That never happened and the Turnpike Authority became forever until the legislature had a moment of clarity.
One way to pay for them is fuel taxes, realizing that may not work in the future but it does now. The other way to pay for them would be figuring out how it is per mile road spending in MA is so damn high even those the roads suck. Somehow there are plenty of other states that have both better roads and much less per mile spending. Do they have less density? Maybe but that doesn't explain all of it.
I'll point to the Rt 3 expansion between 128 and NH as a great example. At about the same time, NH expanded and reworked their section north of the border. Even when both sections were quite new, it was clear NH's was better. It was graded better (no undulations) and over the years, it's remained better. I travel that road all the time and the traffic and weather are similar. It's clear MA built their part to a lower standard and this was confirmed by civil eng I knew on the project.
So forgive me if I'm not just going to go along with spending more on roads in MA without question.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8jxcv5 wrote
Your solution is to rely on taxes that already don’t cover it and will continue to decline? You are just complaining about the past without anything better to offer. You don’t get it.
The turnpike authority is gone. The ability to shunt funds to other projects is gone. Fuel tax revenues are down. Federal funding is down. Costs are up. Your criticisms of the past and other highways that have nothing to do with the Pike are irrelevant. Provide another way to fund the maintenance or don’t bother complaining. Bitching does nothing to fix anything. If you know how to do it better, tell us. I’ll share it with the planners, DOT staff, and political representatives I work with daily. Give me a better idea and we’ll push it. Otherwise, sit down. You have nothing to offer
PabloX68 t1_j8k42rl wrote
You can share this with the planners and DOT staff.
https://www.yourlawyer.com/library/highway-system-costs-per-state/
Share with them that they're consistently in the top five (if not top 3) per mile road spending and the roads are shit. Come up with a good reason for that and I'll be more supportive of alternative funding methods.
I already gave a better idea. Build the roads to a higher standard in the first place. Put a thicker road bed down and put thicker asphalt down. It'll lead to less potholes and less need to resurface every few years. It'll also lead to less damage to vehicles. Try spending less on public sector unions and you could also go look at what NH does. They have worse weather yet much better roads for a lot less money. Oh yeah, stop paying cops for road details and get rid of that prevailing wage farce.
Yes, bitching does do something. It translates to political support.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k47ck wrote
What is your solution to the problem now? How do you plan on funding reconstructing those highways better?
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k4b0v wrote
By the way, that is not a reputable source for this conversation.
What is your solution? How are you going to achieve funding to reconstruct the roads?
MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k4g3d wrote
Again, what is your solution? You actually think getting rid of row details is going to pay for anything? Do you think there are hundreds of billions of dollars in route details and costs with unions in the state? That’s what it cost to rebuild these roadways
SileAnimus t1_j8m0y15 wrote
> would be figuring out how it is per mile road spending in MA is so damn high even those the roads suck
Because the asphalt is never cleaned and sealed. But to clean and seal the asphalt you need to close down each road for 2-5 days. Do you think we could pass that?
Prestigious_Bobcat29 t1_j8mho9z wrote
Fuel taxes only work if they’re high enough to cover the cost. You’re not paying for the roads you use, you’re being subsidized by the people who don’t drive
tenderooskies t1_j8kybvr wrote
have you ever been to texas? the toll roads are insane. it’s not a MA thing
IntelligentCicada363 t1_j8jbgqy wrote
Adding tolls to pay for maintenance would have benefits. Perhaps the biggest for highways would be that it would remove a lot of power the federal government has over the states.
The drinking age being 21 in every state is not even a "law" in the traditional sense. The federal government instead simply says that if it isn't 21, they will take away all of a state's highway funding. They do this for many things.
​
I also think that private passenger vehicles should pay the real cost to use the incredibly expensive and destructive infrastructure that highways are.
PabloX68 t1_j8jwmec wrote
Why shouldn't commercial trucks pay? The damage to the roads goes up exponentially with the weight each tire puts on that surface. Trucks do vastly more damage to road surfaces than passenger cars.
Weather also does a lot of damage, obviously. That can be mitigated to a substantial degree by building roads to a better standard. They do this in places like Japan and colder countries in Europe. They also do it in NH and the result is the road costs more up front, but long term maintenance costs (fixing potholes) are lower.
There's also NFW states won't chase those road dollars.
ohnoabigshark t1_j8mr2tx wrote
I don't know what work you do but being a toll taker is extremely hazardous to a person's health. If they could afford to keep the roads maintained "to a level far beyond other highways in the state" while also paying toll takers real money, I fail to see the problem.
PabloX68 t1_j8n4mg7 wrote
I already stated the problem. The turnpike authority purposefully spent all the money they had coming in so the authority would perpetuate, instead of paying down the bond which was the original intention.
As for toll taking being dangerous to health, it's no more so than being outside in a city or stuck in traffic.
Quirky_Butterfly_946 t1_j8jlfad wrote
And people wonder why it is so expensive to live in MA. There is no need for more toll roads.
WinsingtonIII t1_j8n2w3p wrote
Tolls exist in many states. They are not the reason MA is expensive, that's primarily housing costs.
Have you driven around NYC? The tolls on the bridges and tunnels there are insane and far beyond anything in MA. A lot of the bridges and tunnels between various boroughs cost $7 each way. And that's with EZ Pass, if you pay by mail it's more like $11 each way. By contrast, the Tobin Bridge in and out of Boston is only $1.25 each way.
Quirky_Butterfly_946 t1_j8ndu29 wrote
It is another form of nickle and dimeing people at every step.
You mention NYC and their enormous tolls, well they didn't start out that way and this is the direction MA is headed.
So the tobin costs 2.50/day with is another 10.50/week, 42.00/month, 504.00/year. That is a lot of money and now people think we need to add more tolls. Are these the same people who tip for takeout food too? Must be nice to have disposable income to just throw it around, but most do not.
WinsingtonIII t1_j8r9pcy wrote
I am not saying we should add more tolls. I am simply saying that tolls are not really the reason MA is expensive, that’s housing costs. Tolls here are pretty typical by the standards of a lot of east coast states.
milespeeingyourpants t1_j8omlpr wrote
The Tobin Bridge enters the chat
bostexa OP t1_j8rfrvb wrote
Yea, I added as part of the description "some bridges and tunnels have tolls"
singalong37 t1_j8kzxca wrote
Scanning through the arguments and flip remarks and everything else I don’t see the correct answer which is that most interstate highways were built with federal money, like 90% federal funding, very easy for the states to build those projects with that kind of support. But the turnpikes and thruways and similar toll roads in the Northeast were built before the interstate program was begun. The states needed to float bonds to raise the cash to build the roads and then pay the bonds back over the years, which is what always happens with capital projects; they’re always funded by bond issues and the state or city has to pay the bonds back over time. So the Mass Turnpike, New York State Thruway, Ohio Turnpike, Pennsylvania Turnpike, New Jersey turnpike, Connecticut Turnpike, Maine turnpike – all built prior to the interstate program and financed with bonds and most of them, Connecticut excepted, still collect tolls.
Fun fact: The interstate highway program design standards prohibit service areas on the interstates. But the toll roads built by the states including the mass pike, naturally thought service areas were a nice amenity and they all have service areas. I’m not sure why the interstates built under the federal program don’t have them but they mostly all don’t.
I-95, 91, 495, 93 were built with federal interstate trust fund money so no tolls. Mass also built Route 128, 3 and 24 without the interstate funding and without tolls either. I’ve got nothing to explain that one.
Paul-273 t1_j8j5mbo wrote
Because the politicians needed a promise to break.
crazyparrotguy t1_j8jkyq2 wrote
I'm sorry, do you want more tolls? I'm happy with toll roads being easy enough to avoid.
davefanri t1_j8k3b9y wrote
When the hell are they going to use the toll revenue to fix the offramps/bridges from I-90 to 95? Those bridges are practically made from Lincoln Logs and Silly Putty
[deleted] t1_j8m1u0f wrote
[deleted]
SainTheGoo t1_j8o1gta wrote
Why are we collecting funds via tolls when we could streamline everything by sticking to just income tax?
bostexa OP t1_j8rfnu1 wrote
Maybe because not everyone drives? We do have the gas tax though, which is not nearly enough for road upkeep
SainTheGoo t1_j8rlyy9 wrote
It just seems simpler and more efficient to use one method, cut the fat. Use it to fund roads, as well as other services that benefit carless folks, public transportation, etc.
Hoosac_Love t1_j8ja0ff wrote
In theory the Sumner and Callahan Tunnel's are not the pike I-90 but RT 1A (the Ted Williams tunnel is I-90) those are not turnpike tolls
Itchy-Marionberry-62 t1_j8kd0oo wrote
Don’t give them any ideas.
[deleted] t1_j8qwjkg wrote
Shhhhhh. Don’t give them any ideas!
Science_Fixion t1_j8uqun6 wrote
Tollbooth Willy may know a bit about this.
JPenniman t1_j8ym1oe wrote
Probably makes sense to expand tolls elsewhere to fund mass transit in Boston.
[deleted] t1_j8jt8m6 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j8joqne wrote
[deleted]
PabloX68 t1_j8jwtw4 wrote
Fun fact, tolls on the pike predate the big dig by decades.
knowslesthanjonsnow t1_j8j5thp wrote
Tolls are part of the theft scheme that governments use to take money from anyone who has a car.
Jimbomcdeans t1_j8j19wo wrote
The idea was that we would connect Boston to NY via I90 and complete that segment of the road. We'd use tolling to pay for upkeep and repair. It has since been expanded upon over the years and still behaves this way. Check out this link http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/mass-pike/