Can Congestion Pricing Be an Equitable Option?
Congestion pricing may be an option for easing congested highways and roads in dense urban areas while simultaneously serving as a revenue stream for other transportation projects. However, if congestion pricing is implemented improperly, it runs the risk of disproportionately harming poorer individuals. The problem with making sure that congestion pricing is implemented properly is that a blanket solution does not exist. Cities have different demographics, modes of public transit, and budget restrictions, to name a few. As a result, any jurisdiction looking to implement congestion pricing may look to other jurisdictions for inspiration but will likely have to modify it to fit their region to ensure equitable outcomes.
The Eno Center for Transportation highlights 10 principles that can mitigate the negative impacts of congestion pricing on equity. One of the 10 principles they identify is “improve mobility options to provide choices” (Brianne Eby 2020). For example, if more reliable and frequent transit routes connected job centers directly with population clusters, then these individuals would be more willing to take public transit. However, improved and more efficient public transit costs money. How jurisdictions use funds received from congestion pricing plays a vital role in addressing inequities. A city may use funds from a HOT Lane to fund new public transit systems, offer discounts on the cost of riding public transit, or investing in new technology to address traffic flow. HOT Lanes alone would likely not fund these initiatives. A combination of a cordon pricing scheme and HOT lanes may make up a more significant revenue stream to fund transit projects/initiatives.
There is significant planning that must happen for these mechanisms to work in an equitable way. Agencies must identify stakeholders in the community and across sectors to devise solutions that work for all. First and foremost is understanding what the community needs & wants. Identify goals that are in line with the community and start from there. Identify where cordon pricing areas can be established that don’t harm lower income workers. Perhaps exemptions for workers entering these areas can be made? For congestion pricing to work an agency must be transparent when engaging the community, develop goals in line with the stakeholders, and understand the geospatial relationships in the city.
Thank you for sharing. This reminds me of a piece I read on StreetsBlog USA last year about the same topic. What was interesting about that piece is, as you mention, its mention utilization of revenue from congestion pricing toward equitable solutions in transportation; it considers the inequity of road expansion (as it provides no affordable options). This makes me think of the congestion pricing project WSP is working on with ODOT for I-5 and I-205. Not part of the project, but definitely part of the conversation, is the Rose Quarter "Improvement" (quotations are mine) Project (RQIP), which has of course been highly contentious for many reasons--from arguments about induced demand to its lack of consideration of restorative justice or effective public involvement. As part of the solution to the congestion on that road is inevitably going to include congestion pricing, I think the consideration of the utilization of funds toward transit improvements targeted in the way you mention could be very helpful toward making congestion pricing more palatable...and equitable. But, I also wonder, is there some way in which ODOT could utilize the revenue from congestion pricing to help revitalize/improve infrastructure along, around, and hopefully above the interstate, in addition to (or as an alternative to) its widening?
ReplyDeleteHere's that post: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/01/30/congestion-pricing-often-attacked-as-inequitable-is-actually-the-cure-for-inequitable-transportation/
(Philip Longenecker)
DeleteI like where you were going with that idea, Shawn, regarding using congestion funds to revitalize/improve infrastructure along, around and above the interstate as opposed to its widening. I think its interesting to consider what would happen if congestion revenues were automatically earmarked to improve the places within the direct vicinity of where they were collected as opposed to a general fund that reinvests those monies region-wide. I suppose that could create equity issues of its own, but it would be intriguing (assuming we have the technology necessary to levy the fees) if the congestion revenues generated on the stretch of I-5 in North Portland was automatically directed to investments in North Portland. (Just thinking out loud here)
In regards to congestion pricing overall, I have a feeling it could become more popular with time. I think in the coming years it may become much easier to collect congestion fees (and you could make them variable too) with electric, connected, autonomous vehicles becoming the norm. I also think the declining viability of the gas tax to fund transportation projects may force the hand of governments to look to new sources of revenue, and congestion pricing is an appealing option. The equity considerations are certainly of upmost importance and can't be overlooked if congestion pricing were implemented - however I think the equity piece is solvable. By that I mean, I think congestion pricing can be implemented in a way that mitigates negative impacts to lower-income groups, and that while the concerns are valid, I don't think they discredit congestion pricing as a good policy. I highly recommend this friday transportation seminar PSU had last year with a researcher on this issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0yGKU0iHXU&feature=youtu.be&t=13
Hey Andrew,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing, and I do agree with you in that there is no cookie cutter strategy for congestion pricing. Congestion pricing, as a stand alone strategy, is not equitable and it really shouldn't be implemented as a stand alone strategy anyways. Plenty of literature regarding equity and tolling does suggest what both you and Shawn have suggested, in which utilizing revenue from the congestion pricing to make transit improvements can make congestion pricing equitable. I am certainly in favor of congestion pricing as it has the knock on effects of reducing the amount of vehicle throughput and carbon emissions, but it must be part of a comprehensive approach that includes improvements to alternative modes and considerations for those near the congestion pricing area.
In regards to the ODOT project, they have their Equity and Mobility Advisory Council, which is tasked with creating an equity framework that will guide the project. Part of the advisory council's duty is to make recommendations to the Oregon Transportation Commission to make congestion pricing equitable. I do want to point out though, that the revenue from the congestion pricing on I-205 is to fund the widening that will happen on I-205. For I-5, the conversation will be different in terms of how the revenue will be spent.
Also here is the link to ODOT's Equity and Mobility Advisory Council website.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.oregon.gov/odot/tolling/Pages/Advisory-Committee.aspx
Thanks, Andrew, for the great post. I absolutely agree there are harmful potential ways of implementing congestion pricing and we need to pursue the most equitable implementation. One thing your post didn't touch on was whether the existing status quo of free roads is more equitable. Michael Manville (who you cite!) has done some great work exploring this both in this blog post and in his Friday Transportation Seminar.
ReplyDeletePublic transportation and mass transit is really challenging in American cities because of the sprawl and unless you live near downtown, you realistically must use a car to get around. Public infrastructure projects are also costly and take a long time because of private-public opinions, influences and priorities and it most cases, letting a private company address the issue with government support is most effective in the United States. California's high speed rail versus the Texas Central project is a good example of this.
ReplyDelete