Just spinning his wheels

1 April 2005

City Councilor Paul Scapicchio's controversial proposal to charge a fee for those who drive into Boston has zero chance of becoming law. The reason: Just 581,000 people live in Boston; 3.4 million live in the communities outside. Suburbanites are not about to sign off on what looks like a new tax imposed on them and them alone, and the iron rule of democracy - those with the most legislators win - means Scapicchio's idea (which needs the state's OK) will quickly die.

And there, perhaps, it should end - seemingly yet another pol's harebrained scheme for money. Yet Scapicchio is serious, claims it's not about the money and has some in the environmental and urban planning community atwitter with delight. And it has been done elsewhere - notably in London.

It's still a bad idea. But why that's so deserves some discussion.

Scapicchio wants drivers to pay $5 or so when they come into downtown Boston on weekdays. The effect would be two-fold. One, it would raise money, which could supplement city councilors' salaries (just kidding). Two, it would reduce congestion by discouraging downtown driving. That, Scapicchio says, is the real intent. Some, of course, would still pay. Others might use public transit, carpool or park nearby and walk in. Still others might not come downtown at all.

It's called road or congestion pricing, and despite being labeled "one of the strangest and silliest things imaginable" by Gov. Mitt Romney, it's not that crazy. For one thing, we already do it, a fact to which tollpayers can attest. HOV lanes are in effect the same thing, making it more costly (in terms of time and aggravation) for solo drivers. So too are subsidies for public transit, which try to lure people out of cars by providing them with a cheaper option. Moreover, road pricing is actually a conservative idea, one advanced by free-market advocates.

So why not adopt Scapicchio's scheme? For two reasons: It won't solve the problem and may create more.

Congestion pricing was implemented in London because the extraordinary level of traffic there was choking the economy. That's not true in our downtown. Drive around someday (not all at once) and you'll find Financial District and City Hall traffic to be surprisingly light. Congestion is worse along Dorchester Avenue in Fields Corner, Massachusetts Avenue by Albany Street or in the Longwood Medical Area.

But the worst congestion isn't in Boston at all. It's along I-93 or Route 128 or Route 3. Clogged roadways, in other words, aren't Boston-specific but rather a regional phenomenon. Targeting drivers coming into one part of the city may feed into the parochialism and anti-auto animus of some, but it will do little to solve the genuine transportation problems facing commuters statewide.

Even more, rather than making it harder for people to enter Boston, city pols may want to make it easier.

Scapicchio's proposal had unfortunate timing, coming out the same day as the Boston Foundation's grim "Indicators" report. Boston clearly faces economic challenges. Office vacancies are high, the suburbs are growing more rapidly than the city, and many now think it's not necessary to go downtown to work, shop or even have a good meal. Yet within the city there's an almost arrogant attitude that Boston can somehow thrive on its own. Not true. In fact, Boston's long-term success depends upon its relationships with the communities around it. Putting up walls - even figurative walls that charge a fee for driving in - just makes people go elsewhere.