There was some hoopla about the recent
op-ed in the Wall Street Journal claiming that congestion pricing would actually increase emissions by making driving easier. As a cyclist first, transit user second, and pedestrian third, I'm all for giving these modes advantages over driving, but increasing and/or ignoring congestion is not the way to do that. As the only person qualified to judge the value of my time, I want there to be a driving system priced appropriately that gets me where I need to go when I'm in a rush and willing to pay. Some people will always drive, but if the economics are right, that will be much less common. Giving me the freedom to choose which appropriately-priced mode of transportation I consume for any given trip is no different than any other market. I don't expect chocolate volcano lava cake for the price of grocery store ice cream and I don't expect to cruise through the heart of a major urban area at 55 mph for the price of, well, free. And as a primary user of alternative modes, making driving harder does not make my life easier. If the cost of driving is included in its price, consumers can make informed choices about their travel. It would be nice if bicycle, transit, and pedestrian infrastructure received even a fraction of the attention that our roads get.
As for the actual merits of the WSJ piece, I'll leave it to
Streetsblog to point out that every city that has tried congestion pricing saw a reduction in congestion and emissions, while improving the travel times of all modes. It's amazing what good economics will do.
