Paying the Price for Cleaner Streets: Boston’s Congestion Debate Continues

Traffic streaming through downtown Boston. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

On February 14, 2024, the Boston City Council held a debate on implementing a congestion pricing system in the city where drivers would be charged a fee to enter Boston during peak commuting hours to reduce traffic. This discussion started not long after New York City paused its congestion pricing program on June 5, 2024. New York Governor Kathy Hochul suspended it for political reasons, such as the desire to protect vulnerable Democrats in suburban congressional races and the potential impact on the city’s post-pandemic economic recovery, resulting in a cancellation of $15 billion in transit projects. The public’s reaction showed that rejection of congestion pricing was less popular than expected. In Boston, although many supporters recognize the potential benefits of congestion pricing, there is an ongoing debate over how it could be implemented fairly and effectively, with many voicing concerns. 

But what exactly is congestion pricing? In simple terms, it is a fee charged to drivers to encourage and convince enough people to avoid hopping in their car at rush hour. Also known as value pricing, it uses market principles to reduce traffic jams. By implementing congestion pricing programs, the main goal is to reduce traffic and improve public transportation by charging drivers more during rush hour and less during off-peak times. Even a small reduction can make a significant difference in traffic congestion. Congestion pricing is similar to the idea of variable pricing, a system where the cost of something changes depending on demand, time or location. This is used in other areas like airline tickets and cell phone plans. 

The need for congestion pricing stems from the root cause of traffic congestion because there is no system to manage how many cars use the road at once. Most people believe the solution is to add more lanes to crowded highways, but contrary to popular opinion, building new lanes in cities is very expensive—about $10 million per lane per mile, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration. Congestion pricing helps by charging more during peak hours, and this involves different types that include dynamic, segmented, and peak-user congestion pricing. Dynamic pricing, also called peak or surge pricing, is when the price changes depending on demand or market conditions, so it is not fixed. Segmented pricing is when different customers pay different prices for the same service, as this helps manage demand by charging more to people willing to pay extra for better features. Lastly, peak-user pricing increases rates during busy times to control overuse and smooth traffic flow. 

Boston’s continued debate reflects how these ideas could be applied locally. The community increasingly acknowledges the benefits a potential congestion pricing system would have. According to CommonWealth Beacon, a nonprofit news organization that covers politics, policy and civic life in Massachusetts, Boston drivers lose $3.2 billion annually to congestion, which averages around 88 hours and $1,543 per driver. Implementing a congestion pricing system would encourage the use of public transportation, thus resulting in reduced emissions as well as decreased driving in congested zones. Moreover, the revenue from driver fees would go towards improving public transit and infrastructure. 

Key figures who argue for the implementation of congestion pricing in Boston are Councilor Tania Fernandes Anderson from District 7, who leads efforts to introduce it in Boston. On top of spearheading efforts, she calls for regional collaboration and more research to be done on the program before moving forward with its implementation. Simultaneously, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu views congestion pricing as a key climate and transportation policy that is crucial to reducing air pollution and car dependency. Wu’s administration continues to explore ways to increase city revenue while simultaneously connecting congestion pricing to housing affordability and municipal funding. This emphasizes long-term livability and equity for Boston. 

Despite these potential advantages, the proposal has faced significant pushback. There are concerns for working-class commuters, as many view Boston as already too expensive. From District 2, Councilor Ed Flynn opposes its implementation, arguing it would unfairly burden low-wage workers, especially during tough economic times. He emphasizes that The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) should be fixed first. Similarly, Amy Carnevale, the chairwoman of the Massachusetts Republican Party, criticized the proposal claiming that commuting would become unaffordable since daily drivers would face extra fees of up to $15 or more. Additionally, Carnevale claims that patients traveling to hospitals for appointments or necessary treatments could face extra financial burdens. She argues that care is essential and should not be treated as “luxury items.” For Carnevale, the Boston City Council should focus on affordability, rather than imposing new taxes that affect actively working citizens. 

Still, despite the opposition, city officials have agreed that the public discourse regarding congestion pricing will continue. Any Boston plan for congestion pricing will most likely take 7-10 years to develop. The process will be lengthy and require careful planning and collaboration, but supporters of the program say it is not risky to talk about it in advance, as state legislature approval would be required. Therefore, the committee has chosen to continue discussions, but no official decision has been made. As Boston continues to grapple with traffic, climate goals, and affordable transportation, the outcome of the congestion pricing debate could shape the city’s future for decades to come.