Third of three parts.

THERE’S BEEN A LOT of local chatter regarding “congestion pricing,” an overused term used to refer to one of many ways to charge drivers for the use of a road or highway.  If we are going to have a productive conversation about charging for the use of our highway, bridge, and tunnel infrastructure, we need to get our terminology right and understand the various ways road pricing can be accomplished.

Some of those engaged in the recent public discussion appear to believe that Boston can implement its own form of “congestion pricing,” but this is simply wrong.  Only the Commonwealth has this power (unless the Legislature enacts a law that grants municipalities the power to charge a fee for entering their city or town, but I hear no one suggesting this).  

Road pricing can be introduced as a way to manage traffic congestion, but that only works if we also significantly improve public transportation alternatives, because the traffic management/congestion reduction benefits of road pricing go hand-in-hand with providing enough people with viable public transit alternatives that it makes a difference to highway levels of service.

The primary potential use of road pricing in Massachusetts will be as a partial replacement of gas tax revenues that are being lost as a result of the conversion of the vehicular fleet to electric power.  Putting into place a new transportation funding system that does not continue to heavily subsidize drivers – which is what we do today – will require decisionmakers to consider multiple revenue mechanisms, including a combination of annual fees tied to car ownership and a road user charging network.  (See the first article in this series for a brief recap of this.

Road user pricing is an overarching term encompassing a variety of approaches to charging drivers for their use of roads, bridges, and/or tunnels. It includes conventional tolling (charging a set fee for the use of a road, bridge, or tunnel facility); congestion pricing (charging more during peak travel times, determined by time of day or by traffic flow); cordon pricing (a fixed or variable fee charged once certain geographical points are crossed); vehicle miles (or VMT) pricing (charging a fee per mile driven); and managed-lanes pricing (charging for the use of a designated lane).  

All forms of road user charging can be means-tested and therefore can be made less regressive than the gas tax.

Conventional tolling has been in use on certain roads for many years, typically on roads that were built and maintained without public funds. In Massachusetts, the assets built and owned by the now-extinct Turnpike Authority (Interstate 90 and the Harbor Tunnels) are examples of this. Tolls on the turnpike were typically based on how far a vehicle traveled, determined by entry and exit point, and by the number of axles on a vehicle.

Congestion pricing is perhaps the most commonly discussed form of road pricing, as its primary purpose is presented not as revenue generation but as congestion reduction. Congestion pricing can by designed to “kick in” at certain times of day when levels of service are degraded beyond a certain level, or it can be imposed all day long but adjusted dynamically during the day to reflect traffic congestion conditions.

Cordon pricing can be implemented as variable or flat charge, but in all cases it is designed to reduce traffic within a highly congested urban district, one that has ample modal alternatives for access. This is the approach taken in places like London, Stockholm and (soon) New York City.

VMT, pioneered in Oregon, charges drivers by-the-mile based entirely on use of the road.  VMT (like all forms of road user pricing) can be designed to avoid tracking drivers and simply function as an odometer – if you drive “x” miles, you pay a fee of “x cents per mile.”

Managed lanes have been introduced in corridors with high traffic flow, allowing drivers to choose to pay a charge for the privilege of driving in a less congested dedicated lane. These lanes, in use in many states, have been derisively labeled “Lexus Lanes” as they are designed on a pay-to-play basis, meaning if you can afford the toll or charge you get a better ride.

As you can see, there are many ways to introduce road user pricing in Massachusetts, and each way comes with its own pros and cons. One constant among all methods will be the technology used to collect the revenue.  The current system of electronic toll collection relies on the use of transponders and license plate recognition, both of which are old technologies and both of which are relatively easy to manipulate if a driver is determined to avoid paying the charge.

Road user pricing evasion is a serious problem, and the relatively easy ability to obscure license plates and remove transponders makes it imperative that the road user pricing industry develop new, evasion-proof digital methods of collecting revenue. 

Singapore is advancing a digital system (what they call ERP 2.0) that is an example of this, but ERP 2.0 has been viewed by knowledgeable observers as too handware-heavy and impractical a solution for US use.  In any event, Massachusetts cannot adopt a road user pricing system unless we (and the road user pricing provider marketplace) have addressed the evasion issue in a way that will ensure a fair system where no one can easily game the system to be a free rider.

Those who oppose road user pricing need to ask themselves, if we aren’t going to introduce one or more forms of road user charging to replace the gas tax, what will we do instead?  What is the plan?  

The conversation we need to have in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts cannot be based on a fantasy world where the gas tax is not replaced. And if you are against any form of road user pricing, that’s fine, just tell us what it is you are in favor of, because “nothing” is not an answer, and calls for “reform” or “more efficiencies” are nothing more than right-wing soundbites. 

For a more in-depth explanation of road user pricing and all of the potential alternatives to the gas tax, I recommend this MIT report (which I participated in) that offers a reader-friendly and exhaustive examination of the options available for decisionmakers:

I hoped in this three-part series to cast some light on a large topic that Massachusetts leaders and residents need to understand, discuss, and resolve.  Whether (and how) the governor’s transportation revenue task force will adequately address these issues remains an open question, as is whether the Legislature will take these topics up in a serious way. 

Time will tell. 

For now, let’s be wary of the chatter that too often sends us down rabbit holes of confusion, misunderstanding, or misinformation.  We have a rare opportunity moment before us, and we can either make generationally responsible decisions or we can squander the opportunity. 

Time will tell.

James Aloisi is a former Massachusetts secretary of transportation. The first part of this series can be found here and the second part here.