Boston city leaders discuss congestion pricing

Shortly after New York City abruptly halted its congestion pricing program, a Boston City Council committee held a hearing discussing the potential for a similar plan.

Boston City Council’s Planning, Development and Transportation Committee recently discussed the idea of congestion pricing with a five-person panel. In February, Councilwoman Tania Fernandes Anderson introduced an order for a hearing to discuss the possibility of congestion pricing.

There were mixed feelings about congestion pricing among the committee members, with some indicating support for the idea and others expressing several concerns. Council member Edward Flynn pointed out that the city is already too expensive. According to Flynn, Boston is experiencing staff shortages among public safety, traffic enforcement and emergency response teams due to residence requirements. He suggested that the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority be fixed first.

Dr. Michael Manville, professor of urban planning at the University of California, Los Angeles, emphasized that the goal of congestion pricing is to reduce congestion and that other policy instruments should be used to achieve other goals, such as pollution reduction or a shift to public transit. He also said that revenue is merely a byproduct of congestion pricing, not the main goal.

There are a variety of congestion pricing mechanisms from which Boston could choose. Adie Tomer, senior fellow at Brookings Institute, said one idea is to charge only for peak-time road usage during rush hour commutes, while keeping road usage free on weekends.

Tomer also suggested prioritizing truck trips. Trucks typically do not cause city congestion, as they make up a minority of trips. However, Tomer said trucks produce more emission with less fuel-efficient vehicles when they do get stuck in traffic.

Several committee members brought up New York City’s congestion pricing program, which was suddenly put on pause by Gov. Kathy Hochul. Jarred Johnson, executive director at TransitMatters, suggested the pushback was in the form of conjecturing and opinion pieces.

“There was very little hard economic evidence that (congestion pricing) would have been bad,” Johnson said. “I think this was the governor relying on bad political advice, and I think it has harmed her.”

The hearing was only a discussion about congestion pricing in general, with no specifics about how such a program may be implemented in Boston. Johnson said the quickest path to any kind of congestion pricing plan would take five to seven years. However, a timeline closer to a decade or longer would be more likely.

Currently, the city administration is not actively pursuing a congestion pricing program in Boston. Even if the city decides to move forward with a plan that could charge motorists for accessing certain roads, it would need the blessing of the state legislature.

Testimony from experts may have raised more questions than it answered. Rather than moving the measure of congestion pricing to the full council, committee members agreed to keep the conversation going in committee. LL