2019
Traffic crawls up onto the Zakim Bridge heading north out of town on an August afternoon. (Photo by Andy Metzger)

MAKING CHANGE TAKES immense political courage and the foresight to see things through, especially when you may not be in office to see the benefits. That’s why I commend Boston City Councilor Fernandez Anderson for her foresight in starting the conversation about congestion pricing earlier this month

We must remember the $3.2 billion a year lost by Boston-area drivers to congestion. We owe it to all street users, drivers, bus riders, and cyclists to start a conversation. It literally carries no risk at all. And with a 7- to 10-year timeline for a solution like congestion pricing, the conversation can’t start soon enough. We need to take the long view and make the right choices for our region.

Congestion pricing is a system where drivers are charged a fee to enter or travel through certain busy areas, usually during peak traffic times. The goal is to reduce traffic congestion by encouraging drivers to use alternative modes of transportation, travel at different times, or avoid driving in those areas altogether. The money is then used to improve public transit and maintain roadway infrastructure. It takes many forms, including variable highway tolls in the most congested areas; “cordon pricing,” where drivers pay a fee to enter or drive through a designated area, usually a city center; and area pricing, where drivers pay a fee for any driving within the designated area.

There’s no need to select a specific type of congestion pricing to start the conversation.

Those who are ready to dismiss the idea out of hand, and who are unwilling to even learn the facts about congestion pricing, are doing us a disservice. Who is most impacted by the current congestion? What impact does it have on our emergency services, schools, and other essential businesses? How does congestion pricing stack up as an alternative to the hated gas tax?

As noted by Professor Michael Manville of UCLA, congestion pricing is the only proven way to meaningfully impact congestion. It forces us to think differently about our streets. Streets are a valuable resource that must be shared between buses, emergency vehicles, cyclists who are trying to have a lower carbon footprint and cheaper commutes, people who must drive for a living, and people who drive for other important reasons.

The real question is how we allocate this street space. Plugging one’s ears and making vague calls to invest in our public transit system while bus lanes come under attack in various corners of the city is not a serious solution. This is especially true when concerns about bus lanes causing traffic are unfounded.

Bus lanes have a negligible impact on traffic while moving exponentially more people and saving bus riders hours of delay. Bike lanes are also vastly more efficient than vehicle travel lanes. The processes for street diets and traffic calming — which, to be clear,  are responses to people, especially children and older adults being injured or killed on our clogged streets — includes stacks of data to assess the impact on traffic volumes.

Ultimately, Boston has to decide whether countless hours and great expense—specifically 88 hours and $1,543 per driver on average—are worth forestalling action on our streets. If we refuse even to have the conversation about congestion pricing and get more data, how will we know the ways the current congestion hurts small businesses and low-income parents trying to avoid late fees from childcare?

Congestion pricing is not a panacea, but it’s likely the foundation of a science-based congestion reduction strategy. In the 7-10 years it takes to implement, the MBTA will be in better shape, we’ll have the data to shape mitigation to protect the most vulnerable, and we’ll identify complementary policies to enact before implementation. 

To that point, tackling parking oversupply in some neighborhoods is critical. “America’s Walking City” is somehow behind car-oriented cities like Minneapolis, Richmond, and Austin in abolishing parking mandates, which drive up housing costs and encourage car ownership in already clogged areas. The city should also double down on mixed-use development that puts more of residents’ daily needs within walking or biking distance. Finally, funding first-mile-last-mile shuttles could help reduce many people’s dependence on cars.

Inaction isn’t an option. The congestion on Boston’s streets, including those without bus or bike lanes, is grueling and hurts nearly every aspect of residents’, employees’, and visitors’ quality of life. Instead of losing money to congestion, we could use the revenues from congestion pricing to supercharge MBTA investments in the city of Boston. And now we have the data to show that 50 percent of metro Boston residents want to know more about the policy and its benefits, so what are we waiting for?”

New York City was set to introduce a cordon-style congestion pricing program for vehicles entering midtown and downtown Manhattan this month before Gov. Kathy Hochul delayed the program on brazenly political grounds. The move has led to massive protests from fed-up transit riders, seen even harsh critics question the move, and while a plurality supported the delay, she saw a slight dip in her approval rating. It turns out that canceling $15 billion in projects and forcing drivers to sit in congestion while a solution was around the corner is less popular than Hochul first thought. It’s too bad she didn’t have the fortitude of other leaders who saw support for congestion pricing rise after implementation. I hope Boston is different. 

Leadership is stepping up to the plate to explore how we can shape a congestion reduction strategy that is equitable and customized to Boston. The city of Boston is in position to be a regional leader in tackling congestion. In Councilor Fernandes Anderson’s words, “If we keep postponing [congestion relief], when is it going to happen?”

Jarred Johnson is the executive director of TransitMatters, a transportation advocacy group.